Efficacy of comprehensive cognitive health management for Shanghai community older adults with mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The management of modifiable risk factors and comorbidities may impact the future trajectory of cognitive impairment, but easy-to-implement management methods are lacking. Aims: This study investigated the effects of simple but comprehensive cognitive health management practices on the cognitive function of older adults in the community with normal cognition (NC) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methods: The comprehensive cognitive health management programme included a psychiatric assessment of the cognitive risk factors for those in the intervention groups and individualised recommendations for reducing the risks through self-management supported by regular medical professional follow-up. The intervention groups for this study included 84 elderly participants with NC and 43 elderly participants with MCI who received comprehensive cognitive health management. The control groups included 84 elderly participants with NC and 43 elderly participants with MCI who matched the intervention group's general characteristics and scale scores using the propensity matching score analysis. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scale and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) scores were compared after a 1-year follow-up. Results: For older adults with MCI in the intervention group, MoCA scores were higher at the 1-year follow-up than at baseline (24.07 (3.674) vs 22.21 (3.052), p=0.002). For the MoCA subscales, the intervention group's abstract and delayed memory scores had significantly increased during the 1-year follow-up. Furthermore, in a generalised linear mixed model analysis, the interaction effect of group×follow-up was statistically significant for the MCI group (F=6.61, p=0.011; coefficients=5.83). Conclusions: After the comprehensive cognitive health management intervention, the older adults with MCI in the community showed improvement at the 1-year follow-up. This preliminary study was the first to demonstrate an easy-to-implement strategy for modifying the cognitive risk factors of elderly individuals with MCI in the community, providing new insight into early-stage intervention for dementia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".