The Effects of Six Months of Exercise on Single- and Dual-Task Posture, Gait, and Functional Mobility Relative to Usual Care Alone Among People Living with Dementia: The ENABLED Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive–motor integration is the coordination of cognitive and motor processes; it is commonly impaired among people living with dementia (PWD) and may be improved through exercise. This pilot randomized controlled trial (1:1) aimed to determine the effect of 6 months of exercise on cognitive–motor integration compared to usual care in n = 42 PWD at two residential care facilities. Participants completed single- and dual-task standing (30 s of standing while counting backward by 1 s), walking (4 m walk while naming words), and timed-up-and-go (TUG) tests (TUG with a category task), measured using APDM inertial sensors at baseline and 6 months (age = 82 years, 35% female, Montreal Cognitive Assessment = 10.2 ± 5.9, NCT05488951). The adapted Otago Exercise Program involved 60 min of lower-body strength and balance exercises and walking 3x/week for 6 months. Usual care involved regular social activities and healthcare appointments. Exercise provoked increased single-task stride length and increased dual-task TUG turn velocity compared to usual care (p < 0.05). Usual care may reduce the ability to appropriately select cautious gait, as the usual care group exhibited faster dual-task gait speed at 6 months compared to the OEP plus usual care (p < 0.05), which was faster than their single-task gait speed. Our results support implementing the OEP to improve cognitive–motor integration in PWD.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".