Comparing the Efficacy of Dual Task Training, Strength Training and Aerobic Exercises on Higher Mental Functions in Geriatric Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purpose: Higher mental functions are one of the important determinants of well-being in elderly. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of dual task training, strength training and Aerobictraining, on higher mental functions in geriatric population. And also to compare which was the most effective training among the three. Methods: Sixty elderly, aged 65-85 years, were randomly assigned into three groups: Aerobic Training (AT), Strength Training (ST), Dual Task Training Group (DT). Mini Mental Status Examination & Montreal Cognitive Assessment were recorded for all participants and the data was recorded before and after nine weeks of training. Training involved three sessions per week. Result: The results suggested that, at post training, the mean MMSE score of DT group was found significantly (p<0.05 or p<0.01) different and higher as compared to both AT(p=0.001) and ST (p=0.029), as well as the post test scores of MoCA of both ST (p=0.034) and DT (p<0.001) was found significantly (p<0.05 or p<0.001) different and higher as compared to AT. Conclusion: Study found all the three training (Aerobic, Strength and Dual task) effective in the management of cognition in elderly, but Dual task training was found to be more effective than both Aerobic and Strength training.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".