MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206034102 · doi:10.1002/alz.052952

Exercise training improves cognition in chronic stroke: A 6‐month randomized controlled trial

2021· article· en· W4206034102 on OpenAlexaffabout
Teresa Liu‐Ambrose, Ryan S. Falck, John R. Best, Ging‐Yuek Robin Hsiung, Laura E. Middleton, Peter A. Hall, Jennifer C. Davis, Janice J. Eng

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of WaterlooKelowna General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusVancouver Coastal HealthVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaCognitionStroke (engine)Randomized controlled trialPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitive trainingPopulationMedicineEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceVerbal fluency testPsychologyNeuropsychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background A stroke doubles one’s risk for dementia. Impairment in multiple domains of cognition are common following stroke. Thus, stroke survivors represent a target population in need of intervention strategies to promote cognitive function and prevent dementia. We assessed whether targeted exercise training or cognitive and social enrichment activities would promote cognitive function in community‐dwelling adults with chronic stroke (i.e., > 12 months since stroke event). Methods A three‐arm parallel, single‐blinded, 6‐month randomized controlled trial with 120 adults with chronic stroke who were randomized (2:2:3) to: 1) targeted exercise training (EX; n=34)) modeled after the Fitness And Mobility Exercise (FAME) program (Eng, Top Geriatr Rehabil, 2010); 2) cognitive and social enrichment activities (Cog‐Plus; n=34); and 3) an active control group (CON; n=52). Each experimental arm was group‐based and 2x/week. The primary outcome was the ADAS‐Cog‐Plus, a global measure of cognitive performance using multidimensional item response theory to summarize scores from the 13‐item ADAS‐Cog and other standard cognitive assessments (i.e., Trail Making Test Parts A and B, Digit Span Forward and Backward, and Animal and Vegetable Fluency). Lower ADAS‐Cog‐Plus scores represent better cognitive performance; ADAS‐Cog‐Plus scores of approximately −1.0 indicate healthy cognitive performance, 0.0 indicate mild cognitive impairment, and 1.0 indicate dementia. The primary analysis using linear mixed model compared changes in ADAS‐Cog‐Plus performance from baseline to month 6, with baseline ADAS‐Cog‐Plus and Mini‐Mental State Examination scores as covariates. Two planned simple contrasts (i.e., EX vs. CON; Cog‐Plus vs. CON) were performed using the Dunnett test. Result Mean baseline Fugl‐Meyer score was 81.21 (SD=23.85; range: 6‐100) and mean baseline Montreal Cognitive Assessment score was 21.89 points out of 30. An overall attrition rate of 14% was observed (EX=6; Cog‐Plus=5; CON=6). Participants in the EX group had significantly better ADAS‐Cog Plus performance than CON at trial completion (estimated mean difference: ‐0.23; 95%CI:[‐0.43, ‐0.03]; p=.024). There was no significant difference in ADAS‐Cog Plus performance between the Cog‐Plus and CON group at trial completion (estimated mean difference: ‐0.10; 95% CI:[‐0.30, 0.10]; p=.314). Conclusion Targeted exercise training may be efficacious in improving cognition in adults with chronic stroke and should be promoted among individuals with chronic stroke.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→