A Study of Changes of Physical Functions According to Changes in Cognitive Functions in Community-Dwelling Elderly People Who Participated in an Exercise Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although it is known that physical function differs depending on the state of cognitive function, there are no studies that consider changes in cognitive functions when evaluating physical functions of participants before and after an exercise program. In this study, it was observed changes in cognitive function and physical functions of elderly people who participated in a community-based exercise program for 6 months, and examined changes in physical functions that took into account changes in cognitive functions. Forty-nine participants, whose cognitive and physical functions were both measured before and after the exercise program, were included in the analysis. The Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-J) was used to assess participants' cognitive function and to determine whether they had mild cognitive impairment (MCI). To assess physical functions, a battery of physical tests was completed. Participants were classified into four groups (before/after; non-MCI/non-MCI, MCI/MCI, non-MCI/MCI, and MCI/non-MCI) according to the changes in cognitive functions after six months. There was no significant difference in the physical functions of the four groups before the start of the program. When changes in physical functions were examined in each group, some changes in physical functions were observed in the groups other than the non-MCI/MCI group. However, there was no significant difference in the physical functions between the four groups after the program. It was suggested that changes in physical functions of elderly people who participated in a community-based exercise program over a 6-month period were not different due to changes in cognitive functions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".