Efectos de un Programa de Entrenamiento en Adultos Mayores. Asociación entre Capacidades Físicas, Composición Corporal y Resultados en Moca Según Género
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of diseases related to cognitive impairment is a growing problem today.The aim of this study is to establish a relation between sports practice, body parameters and cognitive impairment.The experimental group (EG) consisted of a total of 29 individuals, with a mean age of 66.14 years (SD 4.55), sixteen women and 13 men; and the control group (CG) consisted of 30 participants, fifteen women and 15 men, with a mean age of 68.52 (SD 5.52).Body parameters were measured by bioimpedance (BIA); trained physical abilities were measured by walking speed and handgrip strength; and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test (MoCa) was administered for cognitive evaluation.The results show that the training program improved physical abilities, BIA and MoCa scores of the EG (time p < .001, group < .05,time*group < .001)and that there are significant differences with respect to the CG.Furthermore, muscle mass is the trained anthropometric parameter that has the greatest influence on the results of cognitive impairment (in both men (sig = .040)and women (sig = .020)),with right hand grip strength being the physical ability that has the greatest influence on this parameter (T1 sig = .015,T2 sig = .004).This research demonstrated the importance of strength work within an adapted training program for the prevention of cognitive impairment, resulting in improved MoCa test scores in the group that had practiced it.This illustrates the way forward for further work on exercise as a means of preventing cognitive decline.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".