Clinical efficacy of aerobic exercise combined with computer-based cognitive training in stroke: a multicenter randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objectives are to evaluate the effects of a sequential combination of aerobic exercise and cognitive training, compared with exercise or cognitive training alone, on cognitive function, physical function, daily function, quality of life, and social participation in stroke survivors with cognitive impairment. METHODS: This is a single-blind, parallel, randomized controlled trial. Stroke patients with mild cognitive impairment (n = 56) were randomly assigned to aerobic exercise training (n = 18), computerized cognitive training (n = 18), and the sequential combination of aerobic exercise and computerized cognitive training (n = 20) group. All groups underwent training 60 min/day, 3 days/week, for a total of 12 weeks. The primary outcomes included Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Wechsler Memory Scale-Third Edition, and the Stroop color-word test. Secondary outcomes were the Timed Up and Go test, 6-Minute Walk Test, Functional Independence Measure, Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale, Community Integration Questionnaire, and Stroke Impact Scale. RESULTS: < .05, η2 = 0.13), and two sub-tests in WMS-III (both P's < 0.05) following the intervention. However, no between-group differences were observed for physical functions, daily function, quality of life, and social participation measures. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide evidence for the potential synergistic intervention in stroke survivors. Future studies investigating the transfer effects and the optimal training parameters with a larger sample is needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".