Tai Chi versus conventional exercise for improving cognitive function in older adults: a pilot randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have shown that Tai Chi and conventional exercise can modify the brain through distinct mechanisms, resulting in different brain adaptations. Therefore, it is conceivable to speculate that these two exercise modalities may have different effects on improving cognitive function. This study was a parallel group, assessor-blinded, pilot randomized controlled trial comparing the effects of Tai Chi and conventional exercise on improving cognitive function in older persons with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). A total of 34 adults aged ≥ 50 years with MCI were randomized (1:1:1) to the Tai Chi group (TC, n = 10, 3 sessions of 60-min Yang-style Tai Chi training per week for 24 weeks), conventional exercise group (EX: n = 12, 3 sessions of 60-min fitness training per week for 24 weeks), or control group (CON: n = 12, no intervention). Global cognitive function assessed by the Hong Kong version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-HK) and performance in various cognitive domains were examined at baseline, and 12 and 24 weeks of the intervention. Both exercise groups showed improved global cognitive function as measured by MoCA-HK compared with the control group after 12 and 24 weeks of the intervention, (all P < 0.001). Only TC achieved clinically relevant improvement on global cognitive function at week 12. Both exercise groups achieved clinically relevant improvements at the end of the interventions at week 24. Compared with EX, TC exhibited greater improvements on global cognitive function indicated by MoCA-HK after 12 weeks of the intervention (P < 0.001) and cognitive flexibility indicated by part B/A ratio score of the Trail Making Test throughout the study (all P < 0.05). Both interventions were equally effective in improving the other examined cognitive domains. Further studies are needed to substantiate the superior long-term benefits of Tai Chi on global cognitive function compared with conventional exercise, and dissect the underlying mechanisms of the two exercises on improving cognitive domains and the corresponding brain adaptations. Trial registration: This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (Trial registration number: NCT04248400; first registration date: 30/01/2020).
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".