Addressing the Chronic Pain–Early Cognitive Decline Comorbidity Among Older Adults: Protocol for the Active Brains Remote Efficacy Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic pain and early cognitive decline, which are costly to treat and highly prevalent among older adults, commonly co-occur, exacerbate one another over time, and can accelerate the development and progression of Alzheimer disease and related dementias. We developed the first mind-body activity program (Active Brains [AB]) tailored to the needs of older adults with chronic pain and early cognitive decline. Results from our previous study strongly supported the feasibility of conducting AB remotely and provided evidence for improvements in outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We are conducting a single-blinded, National Institutes of Health stage-2, randomized clinical trial to establish the efficacy of AB versus a time-matched and dose-matched education control (Health Enhancement Program [HEP]) in improving self-reported and objective outcomes of physical, cognitive, and emotional functions in 260 participants. The methodology described in this paper was informed by the lessons learned from the first year of the trial. METHODS: Participants are identified and recruited through multidisciplinary clinician-referred individuals (eg, pain psychologists and geriatricians), the Rally Research platform, social media, and community partnerships. Interested participants complete eligibility screening and electronic informed consent. Baseline assessments include self-report, performance-based measures (eg, 6-min walk test) and objective measures (eg, Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status). Participants are mailed a wrist-worn ActiGraph device (ActiGraph LLC) to passively monitor objective function (eg, steps) during the week between the baseline assessment and the beginning of the programs, which they continue to wear throughout the programs. After baseline assessments, participants are randomized to either AB or HEP and complete 8 weekly, remote, group sessions with a Massachusetts General Hospital psychologist. The AB group receives a Fitbit (Fitbit Inc) to help reinforce increased activity. Assessments are repeated after the intervention and at the 6-month follow-up. Coprimary outcomes include multimodal physical function (self-report, performance based, and objective). Secondary outcomes are cognitive function (self-report and objective), emotional function, and pain. RESULTS: We began recruitment in July 2022 and recruited 37 participants across 4 cohorts. Of them, all (n=37, 100%) have completed the baseline assessment, 26 (70%) have completed the posttest assessment, and 9 (24%) are actively enrolled in the intervention (total dropout: n=2, 5%). In the three cohorts (26/37, 70%) that have completed the AB or HEP, 26 (100%) participants completed all 8 group sessions (including minimal makeups), and watch adherence (1937/2072, 93.48%, average across ActiGraph and Fitbit devices) has been excellent. The fourth cohort is ongoing (9/37, 24%), and we plan to complete enrollment by March 2026. CONCLUSIONS: We aim to establish the efficacy of the AB program over a time-matched and dose-matched control in a live video-based trial and test the mechanisms through theoretically driven mediators and moderators. Findings will inform the development of a future multisite effectiveness-implementation trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05373745; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05373745. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/47319.
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 | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.010 |
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".