Are Protective Activities and Limitations in Practical Skills of Daily Living Associated with the Cognitive Performance of People with Mild Cognitive Impairment? Baseline Results from the BrainFit-Nutrition Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limitations in daily living have not yet been described adequately for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). In this study, we investigated first, time spent on protective activities (social, mental, and physical) and second, limitations in practical skills of daily living, both for people with MCI. We used baseline data from 270 individuals who participated in the randomized controlled trial BrainFit-Nutrition. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used to identify people with MCI. Participants were asked how much time they spent engaged in social, mental, and physical activities each week. Furthermore, the Bayer-ADL scale was used to quantify deficits in activities of daily living (ADLs). Regarding protection, the number of hours spent engaged in the three activity areas was significantly correlated with the cognitive performance in people with MCI. Social activities were positively associated with current cognitive performance. Concerning the limitations in practical skills of daily living, older and more cognitively impaired individuals were affected. Memory and orientation appear to be among the first practical skills of daily living that become impaired in people with MCI. Treatment recommendations for people with MCI include an increase in social, mental, and physical activities as well as the promotion of a healthy lifestyle.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".