Cognitive Stimulation Intervention for Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Three-month Study in Primary Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".