MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238469870 · doi:10.4103/0974-5912.135032

Effect of cognitive rehabilitation for mild cognitive impairment in the geriatric population with early onset hypertension pretest -posttest design

2014· article· en· W4238469870 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shamim Shaikh, Sanjiv Kumar, Anil R Muragod

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Health Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionRehabilitationMedicinePopulationPhysical therapyCognitive rehabilitation therapyCognitive testClinical psychologyPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction and Background: Hypertension is common among elderly and the risk of becoming hypertensive is increased considerably with age. It has a direct impact on the cognitive function. Hence it is important to examine whether the cognition related problems correlates with hypertension and is cognitive rehabilitation an effective intervention for the same. Objective: To assess and evaluate the cognitive function in early onset hypertensive geriatrics population for mild cognitive Impairment and to study the effect of cognitive rehabilitation for mild cognitive impairment. Materials and Methods: 84 Participants above 60 years of age with early onset hypertension were screened. The total 63 participants were recruited in the study as a sample of convenience as per the inclusion criteria. The outcome measures used were Montreal cognitive examined, Addenbrooke's cognitive examination, Mini mental state examination. Cognitive rehabilitation was given for 4 weeks (3 sessions per week). Results: Paired t-test and ANOVA was used for statistical analysis. Demographic data in relation to the outcome measures were also analyzed. The pre post analysis of all the three outcome measures, showed statistical significance results. Conclusion: Early onset hypertensive showed mild cognitive impairment and cognitive rehabilitation was found to be effective for improving the cognitive functions among elderly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Journal of Health SciencesSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207