The feasibility of a stepping exergame prototype for older adults with major neurocognitive disorder residing in a long-term care facility: a mixed methods pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the feasibility of an exergame prototype in residential individuals with major neurocognitive disorder (MNCD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to a 12-week stepping exergame training or traditional exercise (active control group). Semi-structured interviews were conducted after six and 12 weeks of exergaming. Qualitative data were thematically analysed using NVivo 12. The Short Physical Performance Battery, one minute sit-to-stand test, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Neuropsychiatric Inventory, Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia, and Dementia Quality of Life were assessed at baseline and post intervention using a Quade's ANCOVA. RESULTS: = 8.1) following exergaming versus traditional exercise. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the exergame prototype is accepted by individuals with MNCD residing in a long-term care facility when they are able to participate and under the condition that they are extensively guided. The preliminary efficacy results revealed higher post-MMSE scores after exergaming versus traditional exercise. Future trials should confirm or refute these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04436315)Implications for rehabilitationThe VITAAL exergame prototype is accepted by individuals with MNCD residing in a long-term care facility who are able to participate.Supervision of exergaming by health professionals is essential for successful implementation.The VITAAL exergame prototype might maintain cognitive levels in major neurocognitive disorder longer than walking combined with standardised squatting and stepping exercises.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".