MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411045415 · doi:10.1002/jcsm.13830

Enhancing Neurocognitive Health via Activity, Nutrition and Cognitive Exercise (ENHANCE): A Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4411045415 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Li‐Ning Peng, Pei‐Lin Lee, Kun‐Hsien Chou, Wei‐Ju Lee, Ching‐Po Lin, Chih‐Wen Chang, Chih‐Kuang Liang, Chih‐Ping Chung, Fei‐Yuan Hsiao, Liang‐Kung Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science and Technology CouncilMinistry of Science and Technology, TaiwanMinistry of Education, India
KeywordsMedicineGeeNeurocognitiveRandomized controlled trialPsychosocialAttendancePsychological interventionPhysical therapyCognitionGeneralized estimating equationGerontologyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background While multidomain interventions show promise for promoting healthy aging, their impact on brain structure remains unclear. This randomized controlled trial (ENHANCE) assessed the efficacy of a 12‐month group‐based multidomain intervention on brain structure and function in community‐dwelling older adults, with particular attention to urban–rural disparities. Methods The ENHANCE trial delivered twice‐weekly group‐based multidomain sessions (physical exercise, cognitive training and nutrition education) in urban and rural communities for 12 months, while the control group received quarterly telephone education. A total of 88 participants completed the trial (attendance rates > 60% across all sites), with 76 completing longitudinal MRI assessments (intervention: n = 35; control: n = 41). The intervention group ( n = 44; 75.0% female) was significantly older than the control group ( n = 44; 70.5% female) (75.0 ± 6.6 vs. 72.3 ± 5.0 years, p = 0.035) and had lower BMI (23.4 vs. 25.2 kg/m 2 , p = 0.016) at baseline. The primary outcomes were brain structures (voxel‐based changes in brain grey matter volume [GMV]), while secondary outcomes were functional outcomes (physical performance, nutritional status, cognitive function, psychosocial assessments and cardiometabolic biomarkers). Results Using two‐stage tensor‐based morphometry analysis, the intervention group demonstrated significantly less GMV reduction in regions over the left inferior temporal lobe compared with controls over 12 months ( p < 0.05). Using generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, the intervention group showed enhanced physical performance at 6 months (5‐time chair rise test: −1.19 s; 95% CI, −2.24 to −0.13; p = 0.028) and improved cognitive function by 12 months (Montreal Cognitive Assessment: +1.32 points; 95% CI, 0.10–2.54; p = 0.034). Cardiometabolic improvements included increased HDL‐C (+6.65 mg/dL, p < 0.001) and decreased triglycerides (−16.07 mg/dL, p = 0.025) at 12 months in GEE models. In subgroup analyses, rural participants showed preserved GMV in additional regions including the cerebellum (Crus I and II) and occipital cortex with greater cognitive improvements (MoCA: +3.06 points; 95% CI, 0.84–5.27; p = 0.007), while urban participants showed greater GMV reduction in the left temporal‐occipital fusiform cortex but achieved superior physical performance gains (5‐time chair rise test: −1.85 s; 95% CI, −3.07 to −0.64; p = 0.003). Conclusions This study demonstrates that multidomain interventions can induce neuroplasticity in older adults, with differential effects on brain structure and function between urban and rural participants, emphasizing the need for tailored approaches that consider sociocultural factors to optimize healthy aging across diverse populations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and MuscleSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207