MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229037284 · doi:10.1186/s13063-022-06152-9

Individualised computerised cognitive training for community-dwelling people with mild cognitive impairment: study protocol of a completely virtual, randomised, controlled trial

2022· article· en· W4229037284 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephanie Book, Michael P. M. Jank, Anna Pendergrass, Elmar Graessel

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionCognitive trainingDementiaMedicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentRandomized controlled trialCognitive testPsychologyClinical psychologyCognitive impairmentPsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: People with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are at increased risk of converting to dementia. Cognitive training can improve the cognitive abilities of people with MCI. Computerised cognitive training (CCT) offers several advantages over traditional paper-and-pencil cognitive training and has the potential to be more individualised by matching task difficulty with individual performance. Recent systematic reviews have reported promising effects of CCT on improving the cognitive capacities of people with MCI. However, the quality of existing studies has been limited, and it is still unclear whether CCT can influence the progression to dementia. We developed an 'individualised' CCT (MAKSCog) specialised for people with MCI that automatically matches task difficulty with individual performance and an active control training ('basic' CCT). The aims of the present study are (a) to evaluate MAKSCog and (b) to investigate whether it can be applied to maintain the cognitive abilities of people with MCI. METHODS: The present study investigates the effects of CCT on cognition in a randomised controlled intervention study in Germany. Participants are community-dwelling people with a psychometric diagnosis of MCI based on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental Status Test (MMSE). Screening and baseline testing are conducted via a videoconferencing assessment and telephone. Participants are randomly allocated. The treatment phase is 6 months with an open phase in which participants can freely decide to continue to use the CCTs. Additionally, both CCTs contain a monthly computerised cognitive assessment that measures different cognitive abilities: information processing speed, memory span, short term memory, and logical reasoning. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to investigate the effect of MAKSCog, an individualised CCT, specifically developed for people with different subtypes of MCI. A methodological strength is the double-blind, randomised, controlled design and the use of basic CCT as an active control group. The study is conducted entirely virtually with valid telehealth assessments for cognitive function. Methodological limitations might include a restriction to participants who feel comfortable with the use of technology and who own a computer, laptop, or tablet. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN14437015 . Prospectively registered on 27 February 2020.

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 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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207