MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3160509242 · doi:10.3390/ijerph18105148

Physical, Cognitive and Social Rehabilitation in Relation to Sleep Quality and Cognitive Functions in the Elderly

2021· article· en· W3160509242 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karolina Filipczyk, Joanna Smolarczyk, Łukasz Kunert, Przemysław Filipczyk, Paweł Dębski, Magdalena Piegza, Robert Pudło

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentRehabilitationInsomniaPhysical therapyCognitive rehabilitation therapyClinical psychologyPsychologyMedicinePsychiatryCognitive impairment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the study was to assess cognitive functions and sleep quality after a 3-month holistic intervention including physical, social and cognitive rehabilitation in patients 65+. Twenty-nine people participated in the study. The study was divided into two stages. In the first stage, a self-administered questionnaire consisting of sociodemographic questions was used, and cognitive functions were assessed using the Rey-Osterrieth complex figure test, Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III (ACE III) test, Montreal Cognitive Function Assessment Scale (MoCA) and digit repetition test. All patients were also assessed for sleep quality using the Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS). After three months, the patients were assessed for cognitive functions and sleep quality, which was the second stage of the study. Analysis of the results obtained by patients in the study showed a statistically significant improvement in sleep quality and cognitive function. Rehabilitation activities, including physical training, cognitive exercises and occupational therapy, reduce the severity of mild cognitive disorders and reduce insomnia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.371 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health→Same topicSleep and related disorders→French-language works237,207→