Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Neurocognitive Rehabilitation of Patients with Mild Cognitive Decline under Restrictions during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: the development of programs for the correction of cognitive impairment in elderly patients with various types of mild cognitive decline is an urgent task of geriatric medicine and clinical psychology. The aim of the study was to conduct neuropsychological and psychometric evaluation of the results of a modified neurorehabilitation program (combination of full time and part time studies) in patients of the “Memory Clinic”. Patients and methods: a total of 114 patients (mean age 73 years) with mild cognitive impairment was studied. Neuropsychological and psychometric evaluation of the dynamics of the cognitive sphere in patients with mild cognitive decline (MCI) before and after participation (week 6) in the full-time/part-time neurorehabilitation program at the “Memory Clinic” was carried out. For psychometric assessment, the Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were used. The neuropsychological study was carried out using the “Express Method for the Study of Cognitive Functions at a Late Age” (N.K. Korsakova et al.). For psychometric assessment, the Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were used. The neuropsychological study was carried out using the “Express Method for the Study of Cognitive Functions at a Late Age” (N.K. Korsakova, E.Yu. Balashova, I.F. Roshchina). Results: using the method of multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), a statistically significant effect (p < 0.05) of the neurorehabilitation program on psychometric tests (MMSE, MoCA) and on the total score of the “Express Methods for the Study of Cognitive Functions at a Late Age”, as well as on its subscales —verbal memory, visual memory, semantic memory, dynamic, spatial and regulatory praxis was detected. Conclusions: a psychometric and neuropsychological study showed the effectiveness of a full time/part-time neurocognitive rehabilitation program for patients with mild cognitive decline under conditions of limited visits to the Memory Clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".