Productive arts engagement at the Tokyo Fuji Art Museum and its health effects on the older Japanese population: results of a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This randomized controlled trial aims to compare changes in mental and physical health in older Japanese community-dwellers who participated in a productive art-based activity at the Tokyo Fuji Art Museum (intervention group) and in their counterparts, who did not participate in the intervention (control group). Methods A total of 73 older community-dwellers living in Tokyo participated in a single-blind RCT in two parallel groups (intervention group versus control group). The intervention was 2 h of productive art-based activities per week. The weekly sessions were carried out at the Tokyo Fuji Art Museum over a 12-week period. The control group did not participate in any productive art-based activity over the study period. Well-being, quality of life and frailty were assessed before the first, and after the last, art-based activity. These outcomes were assessed with the same schedule in both groups. Results The intervention group saw a significant improvement in their quality of life (p < 0.044) and mixed results on their physical health (i.e., decreased frailty status) when compared to the control group. The comparison of changes in frailty scores between M0 and M3 showed improvement in the intervention group (p = 0.014), but when adjusted for baseline characteristics by linear regressions, revealed only a trend (p = 0.070). No conclusive effect was shown with well-being. Interpretation This RCT showed mixed health effects of productive art engagement in older Japanese community-dwellers in Tokyo. Benefits were reported for quality of life and mixed effects were observed for frailty, while no significant effect was found for well-being. Clinical Trial Registration: Ethic committee of Shobi University, Tokyo (Japan), ref. A-2021-1; Clinical Trial Number NCT03679715.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".