Home‐based multimodal exercise program in older people with Alzheimer disease: Randomized controlled trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: At-home physical exercise may be an important intervention strategy for older people with Alzheimer disease (AD) due to the greater adherence and ease for the caregivers. PURPOSE: Determine the effects home-based multimodal exercise program in older people with AD on muscle strength, balance, functioning, cognition, dual task performance, frailty, and physical activity level. METHODS: This is a trial with 40 older people with mild and moderate AD, randomized into intervention group (IG) and control group (CG). The participants will be evaluated by blinded examiners at baseline and after 16 weeks of training. The evaluations will investigate functioning (Timed Up and Go test, Direct Assessment of Functional Status, WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, Short Physical Performance Battery, and Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire), muscle strength (manual dynamometer and Sit-to-Stand test), frailty (FRAIL Scale and Edmonton Frail Scale), cognition (Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination, Trail Making Test, Walking Trail-Making Test, and Frontal Assessment Battery), balance (force platform, Figure-of-Eight Walking Test, Functional Reach Test, Alternate Step Test, and Calf-Raise Senior), dual task (force platform), and physical activity level (Modified Baecke Questionnaire and Life-Space Assessment). The IG will perform 16 weeks of exercise at home that involve functioning, strength, balance, and aerobic endurance in 60-min sessions three times a week. The CG will not undergo any intervention. CONCLUSION: Improvements in the aspects evaluated are expected in the IG compared to CG. The protocol will provide a theoretical basis for the creation of clinical interventions and health promotion measures for older people with AD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".