Museum-based art activities to stay young at heart? Results of a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Health benefits have been reported with art activities. Heart rate is a biomarker of health state. The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to compare the changes in heart rate over a 3 month-period in older adults participating in art-based activities at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts (MMFA, Quebec, Canada) and in their control counterparts. Methods/design Participants (mean age 71.0 ± 5.1; 84.9% female) were a subset of older community dwellers recruited in a RCT in two parallel groups (n = 28 in the intervention group and n = 25 in the control group) who had their heart rate recorded. They attended weekly participatory MMFA-based art activities over a 3-month period. Heart rate was collected via the smart watch Fitbit Alta HR at baseline (M0) and at 3 months (M3). The outcomes were mean heart rate per hour for the full day, including active and inactive hours. Results Heart rate for full day (p = 0.018) and active hours (p = 0.028) were slower in the intervention group compared to the control group. Decrease in mean heart rate for full day between M0 and M3 in the intervention group was higher than in the control group (p = 0.030). The linear regression showed that MMFA-based art activities decreased full day heart rate (Coefficient of regression Beta = −6.2 with p = 0.010). Conclusion MMFA-based art activities significantly decreased full day heart rate, suggesting a health benefit in older community dwellers who participated in the RCT. Clinical trial registration: NCT03679715.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".