The effects of the brain training program on cognition among the older adults in Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Dementia is typically found in older adults, and negatively impacts cognitive function. The current study examined the effects of brain training programs with learning activities on cognitive function in older adults. Methods: We conducted a two-arm quasi-experimental study with participants who were over 60 years old and had Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores < 25 (n=66). The intervention group (n=33) performed a brain training program with learning activities based on social cognitive theory. MoCA scores were evaluated at baseline, immediately after activities were completed at Week 9, and 3 months after the activities were completed. Results: Sixty-six participants showed low MoCA. Mean MoCA scores at baseline in the control group (CG) and intervention group (IG) were 20.09 (SD = 2.89) and 19.82 (SD = 2.33), respectively; whereas MoCA scores immediately after activities were completed (Week 9) were 19.15 (SD = 2.06) for the CG and 24.24 (SD = 3.02) for the IG. Mean scores in the IG were significantly higher than those in the CG at Week 9 and 3 months (p < 0.01). Additionally, the mean cognitive function score in the IG at Week 9 and 3 months after the activities was significantly higher than the baseline (F = 116.87, p < 0.01). Conclusion: The brain training program adopted in this study could be used with older people in the community. Healthcare providers should encourage older people to regularly practice brain training at home.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".