A Study on the Effect of Traditional Chinese Exercise Combined With Rhythm Training on the Intervention of Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To examine the effect of combination exercise program on cognitive function of older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and identify biomarkers associated with improvement of cognitive functions. METHODS: Subjects were 42 older adults (ages, 60-80 years) with MCI. The subjects were randomly classified to traditional Chinese exercise combined with rhythm training group (TCE + RTG, n = 14), walking group (WG, n = 14), and control group (CG, n = 14), according to their level of MMSE scores. These groups exercised for 60 minutes at 1 session, 3 sessions a week for 12 weeks. The intervention program was conducted under multitask conditions to stimulate attention and memory, and the control group attended 3 education classes. Measurements were administered before, after the 6-week, and after the 12-week intervention period; Measurements: The Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), Activities of Daily Living Scale (ADL), and the 17-item Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD-17), along with the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). A repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to examine differences among the 3 groups and between the 3 testing times (pre-test vs middle-test vs post-test). RESULTS: < .01). While there was no significant change in the CG after the intervention. (2) The TCE + RTG and WG showed positive improvement in peripheral blood BDNF levels, while the CG showed a decrease in these test results. There were significant differences between the TCE + RTG and CG before and after the intervention. CONCLUSION: The results suggested that a TCE + RT is beneficial for improving memory and maintaining general cognitive function and peripheral blood BDNF levels in older adults with MCI. Peripheral blood BDNF levels may predict improvement of cognitive functions in older adults with MCI. Further studies are required to determine the positive effects of TCE + RT on cognitive function in older adults with MCI. Trial Registration: ChiCTR2200058545, Registered 10 April 2022.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".