MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4311993428 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062059

Study protocol for the BRAIN Training Trial: a randomised controlled trial of Balance, Resistance, And INterval training on cognitive function in older adults with mild cognitive impairment

2022· article· en· W4311993428 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Trinidad Valenzuela, Jeff S. Coombes, Teresa Liu‐Ambrose, Yorgi Mavros, Nicole A. Kochan, Perminder S. Sachdev, Jeffrey M. Hausdorff, Emily C. Smith, Matthew Hollings, Tess C Hawkins, Nicholas J Ashley, Natan Feter, Guy C. Wilson, Isabel Hui En Shih, Yareni Guerrero, Jiyang Jiang, Wei Wen, Tom G. Bailey, Dorthe Stensvold, Ulrik Wisløff, Ryan S. Falck, Maria Fiatarone Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal Health
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Health and Medical Research CouncilVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of Sydney
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialInterval trainingCognitionDementiaCognitive trainingGerontologyClinical trialConfidence intervalAerobic exercisePhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Epidemiological evidence suggests that both poor cardiovascular fitness and low muscle mass or strength markedly increase the rate of cognitive decline and incident dementia in older adults. Results from exercise trials for the improvement of cognition in older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) have reported mixed results. This is possibly due to insufficient exercise intensities. The aim of the Balance, Resistance, And INterval (BRAIN) Training Trial is to determine the effects of two forms of exercise, high-intensity aerobic interval training (HIIT) and high-intensity power training (POWER) each compared with a sham exercise control group on cognition in older adults with MCI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: One hundred and sixty community-dwelling older (≥ 60 years) people with MCI have been randomised into the trial. Interventions are delivered supervised 2-3 days per week for 12 months. The primary outcome measured at baseline, 6 and 12 months is performance on a cognitive composite score measuring the executive domain calculated from a combination of computerised (NeuroTrax) and paper-and-pencil tests. Analyses will be performed via repeated measures linear mixed models and generalised linear mixed models of baseline, 6-month and 12-month time points, adjusted for baseline values and covariates selected a priori. Mixed models will be constructed to determine the interaction of GROUP × TIME. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Sydney (HREC Ref.2017/368), University of Queensland (HREC Ref. 2017/HE000853), University of British Columbia (H16-03309), and Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute (V16-03309) Human Research Ethics. Dissemination will be via publications, conference presentations, newsletter articles, social media, talks to clinicians and consumers and meetings with health departments/managers.It is expected that communication of results will allow for the development of more effective evidence-based exercise prescription guidelines in this population while investigating the benefits of HIIT and POWER on subclinical markers of disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617001440314 Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0110.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0960.022

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→