Evaluating the impact of a darts game intervention on cognitive function in older adults with and without mild cognitive impairment: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The current study investigated the relationship between the characteristics of a darts game, including the throwing motion toward a target, and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). To this end, we examined the associations between cognitive function and mental health, and the shift in center of gravity while throwing darts. In a preliminary investigation, a 1-month dart game intervention was conducted among older individuals living in the community. The participants were divided into the non-MCI and MCI groups, and the relationship between center of gravity movement during throwing and the presence of dementia was examined. Methods The intervention lasted for 1 month and was tested on healthy older individuals (aged ≥ 65 years) recruited from the community. The Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Trail Making Test was used to assess cognitive function. Mental health was evaluated using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale and the Subjective Well-being Inventory. The center of pressure was analyzed to determine the center of gravity shift during dart throwing. Results The analysis of factors influencing the determination of the MCI score during the intervention revealed a tendency for the center of gravity shift to be associated as a protective factor in the non-MCI group, although this association did not reach statistical significance (odds ratio = 0.942, p = 0.084). In the MCI group, a significant effect of age was observed in the MCI score (odds ratio = 1.539, p = 0.007). Conclusion The current findings suggest that conducting center of gravity shift testing could potentially provide a helpful tool for predicting early decline in cognitive function.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".