A Proposal of Cognitive Intervention in Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease through an Assembling Game: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Alzheimer's disease is an irreversible brain disease, and current treatments are aimed at fighting cognitive decline. We have explored the feasibility of a game-based intervention for people with moderate Alzheimer's disease; (2) Methods: Six participants, five women and one man, were recruited from a day center to participate in a five-week study, which included a re- and post-evaluation with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and INECO Frontal Screening (IFS) tests. Three participants were assigned to the control group and three others to the experimental one. Both groups performed a play activity consisting of assembling a pie toy. Participants in the experimental group were asked to make a pie matching a sample after a time interval. Control group participants were asked to freely assemble a pie without the matching component; (3) Results: Patients were shown to be motivated during such an activity during the nine sessions. The experimental group showed a significant increase in IFS scores when comparing the post- and pre-intervention assessments. No significant differences were observed in MoCA scores; (4) The intervention created a social and emotional climate suitable to maintaining participants' satisfaction and motivation, as well as to developing executive function while promoting positive emotions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".