Effects of a dual-task intervention program in institutionalized older adults: a pilot randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: to compare the effects of single-task (ST) and dual-task (DT) training on physical and cognitive function in institutionalized older adults. Methods: Participants included in this pilot study were assigned randomly into two groups, ST (multicomponent physical exercise, MPE) and DT training (MPE + cognitive tasks). Both groups performed the exercise three times per week for 1 month. Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), isometric handgrip strength (IHS), Barthel Index and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were used to assess physical and cognitive performance, respectively. Participants were evaluated at the beginning (V1), at the end of the exercise (V2), as well as one month later (V3). Paired Student’s t-test and lineal regression models were used to explore the effect of the exercise interventions. Results: 24 (58.3% men, mean age 67.33±3.36) institutionalized older adults were included. Adherence in both groups was 100%. After the training period, both groups significantly improved SPPB and IHS, while MoCA only increased in the DT group. At V3, both groups presented significantly higher MoCA scores, although only DT increased IHS scores. Significant differences between groups were observed in ∆V1-V2 SPPB (p-value <0.001) and ∆V1-V3 IHS (p-value <0.05). Once cognitive function was considered, only ∆V1-V2 SPPB [β (95%CI): 1.63 (0.78, 2.47), p-value 0.001] and ∆V1-V2 IHS [β (95%CI): 0.97 (0.10, 1.84), p-value 0.031] were significantly different between groups. Conclusions: Dual-task exercise may produce greater effect on physical, but not cognitive function, in comparison with single-task exercise in institutionalized older adults. Larger randomized-controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".