Protocol for SYNchronising Exercises, Remedies in GaIt and Cognition at Home (SYNERGIC@Home): feasibility of a home-based double-blind randomised controlled trial to improve gait and cognition in individuals at risk for dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Physical exercise and cognitive training have the potential to enhance cognitive function and mobility in older adults at risk of Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD), but little is known about the feasibility of delivering multidomain interventions in home settings of older adults at risk of ADRD. This study aims to assess the feasibility of home-based delivery of exercise and cognitive interventions, and to evaluate the relationship between participants' intervention preferences and their subsequent adherence. Secondary objectives include the effect of the interventions on ADRD risk factors, including frailty, mobility, sleep, diet and psychological health. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The SYNchronising Exercises, Remedies in GaIt and Cognition at Home (SYNERGIC@Home) feasibility trial is a randomised control trial that follows a 2×2 factorial design, with a 16-week home-based intervention programme (3 sessions per week) of physical exercises and cognitive training. Participants will be randomised in blocks of four to one of the following four arms: (1) combined exercise (aerobic and resistance)+cognitive training (NEUROPEAK); (2) combined exercise+control cognitive training (web searching); (3) control exercise (balance and toning)+cognitive training; and (4) control exercise+control cognitive training. SYNERGIC@Home will be implemented through video conferencing. Baseline and post-intervention assessments at 4-month and 10-month follow-up will include measures of cognition, frailty, mobility, sleep, diet and psychological health. Primary feasibility outcome is adherence to the interventions. Primary analytic outcome is the relationship between pre-allocation preference for a given intervention and subsequent adherence to the allocated intervention. A series of secondary analytic outcomes examining the potential effect of the individual and combined interventions on cognitive, mobility and general well-being will be measured at baseline and follow-up. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was granted by the relevant research ethics boards. Findings of the study will be presented to stakeholders and published in peer-reviewed journals and at provincial, national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04997681, Pre-results.
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 | 0.026 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.013 |
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".