MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212175712 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.726083

Acupressure and Cognitive Training Can Improve Cognitive Functions of Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2021· article· en· W3212175712 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jingxian Sun, Hui Zeng, Lü Pan, Xiaosong Wang, Mengjiao Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNanjing UniversityNanjing University of Chinese Medicine
KeywordsAcupressureCognitionCognitive trainingMontreal Cognitive AssessmentRandomized controlled trialCognitive InterventionPhysical therapyPsychologyIntervention (counseling)MedicineCognitive impairmentPsychiatryAlternative medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Given the limited effectiveness of pharmacological treatments in mitigating cognitive decline in individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), there is a pressing need for developing effective non-pharmacological intervention programs to counteract MCI-related cognitive decline. Acupressure and cognitive training are safe and cost-effective; however, evidence of the effect of acupressure or the combined effect of acupressure and cognitive training on cognitive functions of older adults with MCI is limited. Objective: To evaluate both the individual and combined effects of acupressure and cognitive training on cognitive functions of older adults with MCI. Methods: One hundred and eighty older adults with MCI were recruited and randomly assigned to combined acupressure and cognitive training group ( n = 45), acupressure group ( n = 45), cognitive training group ( n = 45), or control group ( n = 45). Participants in the experimental groups received self-administered and group-based training sessions, while those in the control group received routine community education. The intervention lasted for 6 months. The cognitive functions of all the participants were assessed at multiple stages, including pre-intervention, at the end of the third and sixth months. Results: One hundred and fifty-one participants completed the study, and all participants analyzed in intervention groups completed at least 85% of all practice sessions recommended. Repeated measures analysis of variance of the scores of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) at different time points among the four groups revealed that the group effect, time effect, and interaction effect were all significant ( p < 0.01). Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction showed that the scores of MMSE and MoCA in acupressure group, cognitive training group, and combined group were significantly raised compared with control group ( p < 0.01). Compared with acupressure or cognitive training groups, the scores of MMSE and MoCA in combined group were significantly higher ( p < 0.05). The scores of MMSE and MoCA in acupressure group had no significant differences with those in cognitive training group ( p > 0.05). Conclusion: Acupressure and cognitive training both could improve the cognitive functions of older adults with MCI, and when used together, the effects were enhanced. Clinical Trial Registration: This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No.ChiCTR2100049955).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207