Motor–Cognitive Interventions May Effectively Improve Cognitive Function in Older Adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a syndrome that occurs in the preclinical stage of Alzheimer's disease. Early intervention can be effective in preventing Alzheimer's disease, but further research is needed on intervention methods. To identify interventions that are more suitable for Chinese characteristics and to investigate the effects of motor-cognitive intervention on the cognitive functions of older adults with MCI, we screened 103 community-dwelling older adults with MCI aged 65 years and older in Qingdao, Shandong, China; divided them into an intervention group and a control group; and administered a motor-cognitive intervention to the intervention group for 12 weeks. The study used the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) to assess the initial cognitive level of the MCI participants and detect the effects of the intervention. We found that the cognitive abilities of the intervention group were significantly improved at the end of the intervention, as well as at the end of the follow-up, compared with the control group. The results of the current study suggest that the motor-cognitive intervention we used may improve the cognition of older people with MCI in the Chinese community.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it