Telehealth Rehabilitation for Cognitive Impairment: Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Nonpharmacological interventions are needed to support the function of older adults struggling with subjective cognitive impairment (SCI), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia due to Alzheimer disease (AD). Telerehabilitation aims to provide rehabilitation at a distance, but cognitive rehabilitation by videoconferencing has not been explored. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to compare goal-oriented cognitive rehabilitation delivered in-person with videoconferencing to determine whether telehealth cognitive rehabilitation appears feasible. METHODS Random assignment to in-person or telehealth videoconferencing cognitive rehabilitation with a combined between-subjects, multiple baseline single-case experimental design, cognitive rehabilitation was delivered by a therapist to 6 participants with SCI (n=4), MCI (n=1), or dementia due to AD (n=1). RESULTS Two of the 6 participants randomly assigned to the telehealth condition withdrew before beginning the intervention. For those who participated in the intervention, 6 out of 6 goals measured with the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure improved for those in the in-person group, and 7 out of 9 goals improved for those in the telehealth group. CONCLUSIONS Delivery of cognitive rehabilitation by telehealth appeared feasible but required modifications such as greater reliance on caregivers and clients for manipulating materials.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".