Comparison of Traditional Versus Computer-Based Cognitive Training on Cognition in Elderly with Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Normal ageing cause alterations in the prefrontal cortex, medial temporal lobe system, hippocampus and cerebellum. These changes are the cause of mild cognitive impairment in terms of decreased memory function, reduced speed and executive functions, personality and behavioral disturbances. Computer-based cognitive training is a new tool used for cognitive rehabilitation. This randomized control trial includes 50 subjects, Group A received computer-based cognitive training (n=25) by using BrainHQ app and Group B received Tradition cognitive training (n=25) for 3 weeks. Montreal cognitive assessment (MOCA) was taken as outcome measure. The comparison of difference of pre and post MOCA score between Group A and Group B shows p=0.002. Also comparison of MOCA score between male and female of group A shows statistically significant difference with respect to MALE P=0.008 and FEMALE P=0.000.This study provides a strong evidence that Computer Based Cognitive Training showed added improvements in cognition function compared to traditional training.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".