The Impact of Multicomponent Intervention on Cognition in Older Adults with Subjective Cognitive Decline: A Randomised Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is the self-perceived deterioration in cognitive function in the form of more frequent confusion or memory loss, in comparison to a previously normal state. Developing strategies to improve cognitive function and slow the rate of cognitive decline is essential to prevent further dementia. Purpose:The objective of the study was to investigate the impact of the multicomponent intervention encompassing physical, cognitive, and psychosocial components (PCP protocol) on the cognitive function of the older adults having SCD. Participants:The study involved 130 older adults having SCD. Participants were randomized into two groups; an experimental group received PCP protocol while a control group received regular Occupational Therapy (OT) program. Methods:A randomized controlled trial (RCT) design was employed. The intervention’s efficacy was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Evaluation (ACE-III) at baseline, 12th week, and 24th week, later the data was analyzed. Results:One-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the means of MOCA and ACE III scores across the three assessment sessions separately for the control and experimental groups. The experimental group showed significant improvement in MOCA (p = .013) and ACE II (p = .006) scores. Conclusions:A PCP protocol significantly improved cognitive outcomes in older adults with SCD. The findings will benefit both the patients and clinicians in cognitive health.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".