MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407709471 · doi:10.3892/wasj.2025.327

Effect of combined aerobic exercise and cognitive training in older adults with post‑stroke cognitive impairment

2025· article· en· W4407709471 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thi Ngoc Anh Nguyen, Van Minh Pham

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Academy of Sciences Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive impairmentAerobic exerciseCognitionCognitive trainingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStroke (engine)PsychologyTraining (meteorology)Physical therapyGerontologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive impairment affects >50% of individuals who survive for 6 months following a stroke. Cognitive impairment not only reduces the ability of patients to relearn motor skills due to memory problems or poor judgment, but also significantly impairs daily living activities and quality of life. Early intervention in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) not only improves cognition, but also attenuates the progression to dementia. The present controlled prospective study included 38 older adults with post‑stroke MCI, who were assigned to the intervention group (aerobic + cognitive exercise) and the control group (cognitive exercise). Both groups participated in 60‑min sessions, three times per week, for 12 weeks (4 weeks in the hospital and 8 weeks at home). The intervention group exhibited a significant improvement in cognitive function (Montreal cognitive assessment and frontal assessment battery, P<0.05), as well as in physical function and quality of life, compared to the control group. On the whole, the present study demonstrates that the combination of aerobic and cognitive exercise is beneficial leading to improvements in the cognitive function, physical function and quality of life of individuals with post‑stroke MCI. 

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Academy of Sciences JournalSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207