The Effectiveness of Cognitive Flexibility Training Program on Cognitive Functions and Activities of Daily Living in Patients with Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a cognitive flexibility training program on cognitive functions and activities of daily living (ADLs) in patients with ischemic stroke. Methods: A single blind randomized controlled trial study was conducted in a stroke unit of a tertiary hospital in a Bangkok setting. The sample size was 80 participants of both genders, aged 18 – 80 years. The sample size was stratified by age. Randomization was generated by a computer program dividing 40 participants into the experiment and 40 into the control group. Eleven participants dropped out during data collection. Therefore, 34 participants in the experimental group received cognitive flexibility training four days a week for 30-40 minutes per day over a period of 4 weeks in addition to usual care. There were 35 participants in the control group who received diary recording and usual care. The study used various instruments for data collection, including a Thai version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Barthel’s Index of Activities of Daily Living. Data were analyzed by multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA). Results: The experiment group had higher cognitive functions and abilities in performing activities of daily living than the control group with statistical significance (p < .05). Conclusion: The study suggested that the program can be used to increase both cognitive functions and activities of daily living. Nurses and healthcare staff should apply this program in patients with acute ischemic stroke for nervous system recovery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".