Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was to understand the effect of complex cognitive reinforcement training program for seniors with dementia at long term care hospitals and nursing facilities on the cognitive function of seniors with dementia. For 8 weeks from Apr. to May, 2017, 30 men and women having no disqualification affecting this study were selected from ○○ hospital and C center located in Busan, and the purpose of this study was understood and the written consent was submitted by all participants. The trainings composed of the cognitive rehabilitation program of G hospital and the cognitive stimulation activity program of C center were provided twice a week in 8 weeks for 30 minutes in each training. MMSE-KC, GDS, and MoCA-K were used to measure the overall cognitive domain. To investigate the effect of trainings on cognitive status of seniors with dementia, an initial assessment prior to the training and interim and final assessment were performed. First, in the comparison of cognitive function by a training period, the cognitive rehabilitation training group showed the bigger improvement in the cognitive assessment score(MMSE-KC), compared to the cognitive stimulation training group. Second, in the comparison of cognitive function by a training period, the cognitive rehabilitation training group showed the bigger difference in the efficacy in the cognitive assessment score (GDS), compared to the cognitive stimulation training group. Third, in the comparison of cognitive function by a training period, the cognitive rehabilitation training group showed the bigger difference in the efficacy in the cognitive assessment score (MoCA-K), compared to the cognitive stimulation training group. Based on the comprehensive result of this study, there was no difference by participants depending on the training methods that are the cognitive rehabilitation training and the cognitive stimulation training, and both groups showed positive effects on their cognitive function after trainings. Therefore, it will be considered more effective in the future to carry out two programs at the same time, though a different program is currently applied in each institution depending on its environment. Accordingly, it is hoped to conduct a future study based on more segmented method.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".