The effects of high versus low frequency of combined physical and cognitive training on cognitive function in older adults with cognitive decline: a quasi-experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effects of combined training can be affected by training characteristics such as frequency, session length, and duration. No empirical studies to date have directly compared how combined physical and cognitive training offered at different training frequencies affects cognitive function for older adults with cognitive decline. This study investigated the impact of training frequency on cognitive outcomes after combined physical and cognitive training for older adults with cognitive decline. METHODS: A quasi-experimental study was conducted in community facilities and day care centers. The study assigned 89 older adults with cognitive decline into high-frequency (HF) or low-frequency (LF) training groups. The participants received 90- to 105-min training sessions, one (LF) or three (HF) times a week, for 12 weeks. Outcome measures were the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Word List subtest of the Wechsler Memory Scale, Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), and Stroop Color Word Test. RESULTS: The HF group demonstrated greater improvement in immediate memory measured by the WL-IM (F = 8.7, P = 0.004) and in executive function measured by the SCWT (F = 5.89, P = 0.017) than the LF group. Compared with the HF group, the LF group showed a great improvement in delayed memory measured by the WL-DM (F = 9.62, P = 0.003). The HF and LF groups both increased in processing speed and global cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicated that the different training frequency of combined physical and cognitive training may result in benefits on different cognitive functions in older adults with cognitive decline. These findings may assist clinical practitioners in choosing appropriate training frequencies based on various intervention purposes for the elderly with cognitive decline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03619577 (08/08/2018).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".