Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial: Effect of an everyday cognition training program on cognitive function, emotional state, frailty and functioning in older adults without cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ageing entails changes in complex cognitive functions that lead to a decrease in autonomy and quality of life. Everyday cognition is the ability to solve cognitively complex problems in the everyday world, enabling instrumental activities of life. Benefits have been found in studies using everyday cognition-based assessment and intervention, as the results predict improvements in everyday performance, not just in specific cognitive functions. A study protocol is presented based on assessment and training in everyday cognition versus traditional cognitive stimulation for the improvement of functionality, emotional state, frailty and cognitive function. METHODS: A parallel randomised controlled clinical trial with two arms will be conducted. It will be carried out by the University of Salamanca (Spain) in eleven centres and associations for the elderly of the City Council of Salamanca. People aged 60 years or older without cognitive impairment will be recruited. Participants will be randomly distributed into two groups: the experimental group will undergo a training programme in everyday cognition and the control group a programme of traditional cognitive stimulation, completing 25 sessions over 7 months. All participants will be assessed at the beginning and at the end of the intervention, where socio-demographic data and the following scales will be collected: The Medical Outcomes Study (MOS), Questionnaire ARMS-e, Everyday Cognition Test (PECC), Scale Yesavage, Test Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), The Functional Independence Measure (FIM), Fragility Index and Lawton y Brody Scale. DISCUSSION: The present study aims to improve conventional clinical practice on cognitive function training by proposing a specific assessment and intervention of everyday cognition based on the importance of actual cognitive functioning during the resolution of complex tasks of daily life, giving priority to the improvement of autonomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; ID: NCT05688163. Registered on: January 18, 2023.
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 | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.096 | 0.015 |
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".