The Effect of Cognitive Rehabilitation Program Combined with Physical Exercise on Cognitive Function, Depression, and Sleep in Chronic Stroke Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study was conducted to verify the effectiveness of a cognitive rehabilitation program consisting of physical exercises and mental activities for patients with chronic stroke with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).We aimed to investigate how this cognitive rehabilitation program affects patients' cognitive ability, depression, and sleep quality.Design: One group pretest-posttest design Methods: The study was conductedon 12 patients who participated in thecognitive rehabilitation complex exercise program for 16 weeks.The Korean version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-K), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (K-HDRS), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) were used to evaluate the measured variables before and after study participation.The cognitive rehabilitation complex exercise program included 30 minutes of cognitive exercise and 30 minutes of Brill Exercise.The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the variables before and after program participation.Cronbach's ɑ was used to assess the reliability of the test variables.Results: The post-program assessment showed a statistically significant increase in the MoCA-K score, which measures cognitive function (Z=-2.628,P=0.009).For depression ratings, there was a statistically significant decrease in the K-HDRS score (Z=-2.041,P=0.041).For sleep quality, although there was a numerical increase in the PSQI score, the difference was not statistically significant (Z=-0.702,P=0.483).The reliability test confirmed that all the individual test variables exhibited high reliability (cognitive function, 0.859; depression, 0.872; sleep, 0.822).Conclusions: We found that cognitive rehabilitation program used in this study had a positive effect on the cognitive function and depression in patients with chronic stroke with MCI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".