MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211012689 · doi:10.1002/jcsm.12925

Effects of Vivifrail multicomponent intervention on functional capacity: a multicentre, randomized controlled trial

2022· article· en· W4211012689 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsParkwood InstituteLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIGobierno de NavarraDepartamento de Salud, Gobierno de NavarraMinisterio de Asuntos Económicos y Transformación Digital, Gobierno de España
KeywordsMedicineDementiaCognitionRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)GerontologyPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitive impairmentActivities of daily livingPsychiatryDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Physical exercise is an effective strategy for preserving functional capacity and improving the symptoms of frailty in older adults. In addition to functional gains, exercise is considered to be a cornerstone for enhancing cognitive function in frail older adults with cognitive impairment and dementia. We assessed the effects of the Vivifrail exercise intervention for functional capacity, cognition, and well-being status in community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: In a multicentre randomized controlled trial conducted in three tertiary hospitals in Spain, a total of 188 older patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia (aged >75 years) were randomly assigned to an exercise intervention (n = 88) or a usual-care, control (n = 100) group. The intervention was based on the Vivifrail tailored multicomponent exercise programme, which included resistance, balance, flexibility (3 days/week), and gait-retraining exercises (5 days/week) and was performed for three consecutive months (http://vivifrail.com). The usual-care group received habitual outpatient care. The main endpoint was change in functional capacity from baseline to 1 and 3 months, assessed with the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). Secondary endpoints were changes in cognitive function and handgrip strength after 1 and 3 months, and well-being status, falls, hospital admission rate, visits to the emergency department, and mortality after 3 months. RESULTS: The Vivifrail exercise programme provided significant benefits in functional capacity over usual-care. The mean adherence to the exercise sessions was 79% in the first month and 68% in the following 2 months. The intervention group showed a mean increase (over the control group) of 0.86 points on the SPPB scale (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32, 1.41 points; P < 0.01) after 1 month of intervention and 1.40 points (95% CI 0.82, 1.98 points; P < 0.001) after 3 months. Participants in the usual-care group showed no significant benefit in functional capacity (mean change of -0.17 points [95% CI -0.54, 0.19 points] after 1 month and -0.33 points [95% CI -0.70, 0.04 points] after 3 months), whereas the exercise intervention reversed this trend (0.69 points [95% CI 0.29, 1.09 points] after 1 month and 1.07 points [95% CI 0.63, 1.51 points] after 3 months). Exercise group also obtained significant benefits in cognitive function, muscle function, and depression after 3 months over control group (P < 0.05). No between-group differences were obtained in other secondary endpoints (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The Vivifrail exercise training programme is an effective and safe therapy for improving functional capacity in community-dwelling frail/prefrail older patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia and also seems to have beneficial effect on cognition, muscle function, and mood status.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.238 · 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