MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404183545 · doi:10.1093/gerona/glae264

Does Sleep Moderate the Effects of Exercise Training or Complex Mental and Social Activities on Cognitive Function in Adults With Chronic Stroke? Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial

2024· article· en· W4404183545 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan S. Falck, Ryan G Stein, Jennifer C. Davis, Janice J. Eng, Laura E. Middleton, Peter A. Hall, Teresa Liu‐Ambrose

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journals of Gerontology Series A · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooGF Strong Rehabilitation CentreUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation pour la Recherche sur AlzheimerMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsCognitionRandomized controlled trialStroke (engine)Cognitive trainingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyPhysical therapySleep (system call)Mental healthMedicineGerontologyPsychiatryComputer scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Exercise (EX) or cognitive and social enrichment (ENRICH) are 2 strategies for promoting cognition poststroke. Whether sleep moderates the effects of EX or ENRICH on cognition in adults with chronic stroke is unknown. METHODS: A 3-arm parallel randomized clinical trial among community-dwelling adults aged 55+ years with chronic stroke (ie, ≥12 months since stroke). Participants were randomized to 2× per week EX, ENRICH, or balance and tone control (BAT). At baseline, device-measured sleep duration and efficiency were measured using wrist-worn actigraphy; self-reported quality was measured by Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Participants were categorized at baseline as having good or poor device-measured duration, device-measured efficiency, or self-reported quality based on PSQI. The primary cognitive outcome was Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Plus (ADAS-Cog-Plus) measured at baseline, 6 months (end of intervention), and 12 months (6-month follow-up). We examined if baseline sleep categorizations (ie, good vs poor) moderated the effects of EX or ENRICH on ADAS-Cog-Plus. RESULTS: We enrolled 120 participants in the trial (EX = 34; ENRICH = 34; BAT = 52). Sleep quality (ie, device-measured sleep efficiency or self-reported sleep quality) categorization moderated effects of EX (but not ENRICH) on ADAS-Cog-Plus. Compared with BAT participants with poor sleep quality, EX participants with poor sleep quality had better ADAS-Cog-Plus performance at 6 months (estimated mean difference for those with poor device-measured sleep efficiency: -0.48; 95% CI [-0.85, -0.10]; p = .010); estimated mean difference for those with poor self-reported sleep quality: -0.38; 95% CI [-0.70, -0.07]; p = .014). There was no effect of EX on ADAS-Cog-Plus for participants with good sleep quality. Device-measured sleep duration did not moderate intervention effects. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise is particularly beneficial in improving cognitive function in adults with chronic stroke and poor sleep quality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.010
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journals of Gerontology Series ASame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207