MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE CORRELATION OF COGNITIVE FUNCTION TO BRAIN GYM IN THE ELDERLY

2024· article· en· W4402576666 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sri Budhi Rianawati, Herpan Syafii Harahap, Neila Raisa, Catur Ari Setianto, Mulika Ade Fitria Nikmahtustsani, Helnida Anggun Maliga

Bibliographic record

VenueMNJ (Malang Neurology Journal) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitas Brawijaya
KeywordsCorrelationCognitionBrain functionPsychologyFunction (biology)MedicineMathematicsNeuroscienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: A decline in cognitive function is often considered normal in the elderly, but the advanced stages of cognitive decline can decrease the ability to perform functional activities. Brain gym is one of the physical activity therapies that is proven to improve cognitive function. The purpose of this study is to know the effect of brain gym on cognitive function. Objective: This study aims to determine the correlation of cognitive function to brain gym in elderly. Methods: This is a queasy experimental study in 70 respondent with a pre and post-test group design. The subjects were elderly who were examined with Montreal Cognitive Assessment Indonesian (MoCA-Ina) and Visual Reproduction Test (VRT) on the first day and given brain gym 13 times, which was done 2 times in 1 week and re-examined MoCA-Ina and VRT after the intervention. Results: The research results show improvement in the MoCA-Ina and VRT pre and post-examinations after being given intervention. In the MoCA-INA examination, the mean score of the pretest was 23.30 and the mean score of the post-test was 24.50, while in the VRT examination, the mean score of the pretest was 10.08, and the post-test mean score was 10.83. However, there was no significant difference between MoCA-Ina or VRT in pre- and post-interventional brain gym (p>0.05). Conclusion: There is a relationship between cognitive function which is marked by an increase in the results of Moca INA and VRT with brain gym in the elderly at Balearjosari Malang

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMNJ (Malang Neurology Journal)Same topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207