Effects of a dual intervention (motor and virtual reality-based cognitive) on cognition in patients with mild cognitive impairment: a single-blind, randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The increase in cases of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) underlines the urgency of finding effective methods to slow its progression. Given the limited effectiveness of current pharmacological options to prevent or treat the early stages of this deterioration, non-pharmacological alternatives are especially relevant. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a cognitive-motor intervention based on immersive virtual reality (VR) that simulates an activity of daily living (ADL) on cognitive functions and its impact on depression and the ability to perform such activities in patients with MCI. METHODS: Thirty-four older adults (men, women) with MCI were randomized to the experimental group (n = 17; 75.41 ± 5.76) or control (n = 17; 77.35 ± 6.75) group. Both groups received motor training, through aerobic, balance and resistance activities in group. Subsequently, the experimental group received cognitive training based on VR, while the control group received traditional cognitive training. Cognitive functions, depression, and the ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs) were assessed using the Spanish versions of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-S), the Short Geriatric Depression Scale (SGDS-S), and the of Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL-S) before and after 6-week intervention (a total of twelve 40-minutes sessions). RESULTS: Between groups comparison did not reveal significant differences in either cognitive function or geriatric depression. The intragroup effect of cognitive function and geriatric depression was significant in both groups (p < 0.001), with large effect sizes. There was no statistically significant improvement in any of the groups when evaluating their performance in ADLs (control, p = 0.28; experimental, p = 0.46) as expected. The completion rate in the experimental group was higher (82.35%) compared to the control group (70.59%). Likewise, participants in the experimental group reached a higher level of difficulty in the application and needed less time to complete the task at each level. CONCLUSIONS: The application of a dual intervention, through motor training prior to a cognitive task based on Immersive VR was shown to be a beneficial non-pharmacological strategy to improve cognitive functions and reduce depression in patients with MCI. Similarly, the control group benefited from such dual intervention with statistically significant improvements. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06313931; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06313931 .
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".