Efficacy of a group-based 8-week multicomponent cognitive training on cognition, mood and activities of daily living among healthy older adults: A two-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive training (CT) has been one of the important non-pharmaceutical interventions that could delay cognitive decline. Currently, no definite CT methods are available. Furthermore, little attention has been paid to the effect of CT on mood and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of a multicomponent CT using a training program of executive functions, attention, memory and visuospatial functions (TEAM-V Program) on cognition, mood and instrumental ADL. DESIGN: A randomized, single-blinded, treatment-as-usual controlled trial. SETTING: Geriatric clinic in Bangkok, Thailand. PARTICIPANTS: 80 nondemented community-dwelling older adults (mean age 65.7 ± 4.3 years). INTERVENTION: The CT (TEAM-V) Program or the treatment-as-usual controlled group. The TEAM-V intervention was conducted over 5 sessions, with a 2-week interval between each session. A total of 80 participants were randomized (n = 40 the TEAM-V Program; n = 40 the control group). MEASUREMENTS: The Thai version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), The Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-cog), Thai version of Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and The Chula ADL were used to assess at baseline, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. RESULTS: Compared with the control arm (n = 36), the TEAM-V Program (n = 39) was associated with significantly improved general cognition (MoCA, P = 0.02) at 2 years. Compared with baseline, participants receiving the TEAM-V Program were associated with significantly improved immediate recall (word recall task, P < 0.001), retrieval and retention of memory processes (word recognition task, P = 0.01) and attention (number cancellation part A, P = 0.01) at 2 years. No training effects on anxiety (P = 0.94), depression (P = 0.093) and IADL (P = 0.48) were detected. CONCLUSIONS: The TEAM-V Program was effective in improving global cognitive function. Even though, the program did not significantly improve anxiety, depression and IADL compared with the control group, memory and attention improved in the intervention group compared with baseline. Further studies incorporating a larger sample size, longitudinal follow-up and higher-intensity CT should be conducted.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".