A Pilot Study of Group-Based Computer-Assisted Cognitive Rehabilitation for Patients with Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study attempted to investigate effects of group-based computer-assisted cognitive rehabilitation for patients with cognitive impairment. Methods: A total of 11 patients with cognitive impairment were included in the study. Cognitive impairment and activities of daily living were assessed using Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Cognitive Abilities. Screening Instrument (CASI C-2.0), Digit Span subtest (DS), Trail Making Test part A (TMT-A), Color Trail Making Test (CTT), Functional Independence Measure (FIM), and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living scale (IADLs) at the beginning of the study, soon after receiving the intervention. Treatment was scheduled for 2 hours per week for 2 months. Results: Positive intervention effects were found in global cognitive functional tests, including MMSE, MoCA and CASI C-2.0, which had statistically significant difference (p＜0.05). Near-significant improvements were noted in the TMT-A and IADLs(p=0.07). Conclusion: Group-based computer-assisted cognitive rehabilitation for patients with cognitive impairment was effective in improving their global cognitive function, especially in attention ability; enhancement of basic cognitive functions may indirectly improve IADL function. Further studies are needed to clarify the actual effect of group-based computer-assisted cognitive rehabilitation in patients with cognitive impairment.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".