Is more always better? Dose effect in a multidomain intervention in older adults at risk of dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the dose-response function in multidomain interventions for dementia prevention. METHOD: The Multidomain Alzheimer Preventive Trial is a 3-year randomized controlled trial comprising cognitive training, physical activity, nutrition, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids for at-risk older adults. The dose delivered (number of sessions attended) was modeled against global cognition, memory, and fluency in 749 participants. Interaction effects were assessed for age, sex, education, dementia score (CAIDE), frailty score, and apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 status. RESULTS: The dose-response models were non-linear functions indicating benefits up to about 12 to 14 training hours or 15 to 20 multidomain sessions followed by a plateau. Participants who benefited from a higher dose included women, younger participants, frail individuals, and those with lower education or lower risk of dementia. DISCUSSION: The non-linear function indicates that a higher dose is not necessarily better in multidomain interventions. The optimal dose was about half of the potentially available sessions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".