Implementation outcomes of the ACT Trial in older adults with amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Preventing Alzheimer’s disease is a public health priority to address its substantial social and healthcare impacts. Exercise and cognitive training interventions are promising but show mixed effects on cognition in older adults with and without mild cognitive impairment (MCI), which is at least partially attributable to varied quality in trial implementation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation outcomes of the 3‐site Aerobic exercise and Cognitive training (ACT) trial that tests the cognitive effects and underlying mechanisms. Method The ACT Trial enrolled 146 older adults with amnestic MCI (aMCI). Participants were randomized equally to ACT, aerobic exercise only, cognitive training only, or attention control ed for six months and followed for another 12 months. Participants completed a 3‐step screening process that included a 30‐minute phone screen (step 1), a 120‐minute in‐person screening (step 2), medical clearance (step 3), and a 60‐minute graded exercise test and MRI (steps 4a & 4b). The implementation outcomes included durations between each screening step, from phone screen to enrollment, from enrollment to the first intervention section. Implementation outcomes were compared across sites using ANOVA. Result The mean age was 73.57±5.49 years, with 47.95% female, 91.78% white, 91.09% had a college degree or higher, and a mean Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score of 23.38±2.16. The duration from step 1 to step 2 was 20.23±31.21 days, step 2 to step 3 was 24.42±41.27 days, step 3 to step 4a was 36.84±76.86 days, step 4a to step 4b was 25.84±60.75 days, and the duration from step 4b to enrollment was 25.60±60.17 days. The duration from step 1 to enrollment is 121.16±109.16 days. ANOVA results indicate no significant differences in implementation outcomes across the three sites. Conclusion The screening took longer than projected regarding completing a participant’s in‐person screening (step 2) and obtaining medical clearance from the participant’s provider (step 3). The major contributors to longer screen duration were delays in receiving faxed documentation from medical providers. Future trials need to build in adequate screening duration to ensure screening success.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".