Effects of combined cognitive and resistance training on physical and cognitive performance and psychosocial well-being of older adults ≥65: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: With increasing life expectancy of older adult population, maintaining independence and well-being in later years is of paramount importance. This study aims to investigate the impact of three distinct interventions: cognitive training, resistance training and a combination of both, compared with an inactive control group, on cognitive performance, mobility and quality of life in adults aged ≥65 years. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This trial will investigate healthy older adults aged ≥65 years living independently without cognitive impairments. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of four groups: (1) cognitive training, (2) resistance training, (3) combined cognitive and resistance training, and (4) control group (n=136 participants with 34 participants per group). The interventions will be conducted over 12 weeks. The cognitive training group will receive group-based activities for 45-60 min two times a week. The resistance training group exercises will target six muscle groups and the combined group will integrate cognitive tasks into the resistance training sessions. Primary outcomes are: Short Physical Performance Battery, Sit-to-Stand Test, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Trail Making Test and Stroop Test combined with gait on a treadmill (dual task). Life satisfaction will be measured by the Satisfaction With Life Scale. Secondary outcomes encompass hand grip strength and the Functional Independence Measure. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was provided by the local Ethics Committee at the University of Hamburg (no. 2023_009). Informed consent will be obtained from all study participants. The results of the study will be distributed for review and discussion in academic journals and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00032587.
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 | 0.028 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.014 |
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".