MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409168550 · doi:10.9734/cjast/2025/v44i44522

Cognitive Stimulation Intervention for Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Three-month Study in Primary Care

2025· article· en· W4409168550 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Journal of Applied Science and Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive impairmentCognitionIntervention (counseling)Primary careMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationStimulationPsychologyAudiologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryNeuroscienceFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims: To implement an intervention that allows cognitive stimulation in patients over 60 years old with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). Study Design: A quasi-experimental study with a pre-test and post-test design was conducted in order to evaluate the impact of cognitive stimulation on elderly population with MCI. The intervention comprised structured cognitive activities and educational sessions aimed at enhancing cognitive function. Place and Duration of Study: Ambulatory Care Medical Unit. The study was conducted from March 1st, 2024 to January 31st, 2025, with Mexican patients attending outpatient consultation of the Gerontology Speciality department (gerontological module) at the Family Medicine Clinic (FMC) "División del Norte" in Mexico City, Mexico. The data was collected from October 1st, to December 31st, 2024. Methodology: The data collection was carried out using a prospective design with three questionnaires. At the beginning of the study, a sociodemographic factors questionnaire and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were administered. At the end of the study, the MoCA was repeated, and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) was conducted. Results: We included 31 patients with MCI. The average age was 78.84 years old (SD=8.1, median age=79 [IQR=72-85] years old). The median age was equal between females (79 years old, IQR=71-85) and males (79 years old, IQR=74.75-85, p=0.811, Median Test between independent groups). The basal MoCA score averages in a range of MCI (22.48 score; with values ranging from 20 to 25; median=22; IQR=21-24). The cognitive intervention led to statistically significant improvements in MoCA scores, with the mean increasing from 22.46 to 23.96 (p < 0.001). Males experienced a slightly greater improvement than females (final MoCA: 24.00 vs. 23.95). The proportion of participants scoring ≤22 decreased from 51.6% to 3.2% post-intervention. Conclusion: Data indicates that the cognitive intervention effectively enhanced cognitive performance. Participants exhibited a clear shift towards higher cognitive scores post-intervention, with a marked reduction in lower scores and increased consistency in cognitive performance. Furthermore, the intervention proved beneficial for both male and female participants, with slight variations in cognitive gains suggesting the need for further exploration of potential sex-related differences in response to cognitive 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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.376 · 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