MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414254081 · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2025.1639245

Effects of exercise-cognitive dual-task training on cognitive frailty in older adults: a randomized controlled trial

2025· article· en· W4414254081 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiaoxing Lai, Hongwei Zhu, Yonghua Cai, Baoyu Chen, Yang Li, Hongdi Du, Liping Zhang, Wenwen Wang, Shuxian Li, Xiaopeng Huo

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aging Neuroscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPeking Union Medical CollegePeking Union Medical College Hospital
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialCognitive trainingCognitionCognitive impairmentOlder peopleTraining (meteorology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective This study aims to investigate the effects of exercise-cognitive dual-task training on frailty status, cognitive function, physical performance, and dual-task cognitive load in older adults with Cognitive frailty (CF) over a 16-week intervention period. Methods This randomized controlled trial enrolled older adults with CF at community health service center in Chaoyang District, Beijing, between February and March 2024. Participants were randomly assigned to either the dual-task training group or the health education group in a 1:1 ratio. The dual-task training group received an exercise-cognitive dual-task training program, while the health education group received information on CF, including its symptoms, risk factors, and non-pharmacological prevention and treatment strategies. The primary outcomes were frailty status, while the secondary outcomes included cognitive function, balance and gait function, walking ability, and dual-task cognitive load. Results A total of 72 participants (35 males) were enrolled, including 36 individuals (mean age: 74.81 ± 8.23 years, 17 males, mean BMI: 21.38 ± 2.83 kg/m 2 ) in the dual-task training group, and 36 individuals (mean age: 76.50 ± 7.75 years, 18 males, mean BMI: 22.18 ± 2.12 kg/m 2 ) in the health education group. Participants (n = 72) were 75.66 ± 7.9 years old; 48.6% (35/72) were male and 51.4% (37/72) were female. Following the intervention, the dual-task training group exhibited significant improvements compared to the health education group in the Tilburg Frailty Index (5.14 ± 0.99 vs. 7.36 ± 1.07, p < 0.001) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores (27.25 ± 2.41 vs. 23.47 ± 1.87, p < 0.001). Additionally, the dual-task training group demonstrated superior outcomes in the Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA) scores (24.64 ± 5.50 vs. 17.39 ± 4.38, p < 0.001), Time Up and Go Test (TUGT) indicators (10.66 ± 1.76 vs. 12.01 ± 2.21, p < 0.05), and cognitive load measures (all p < 0.05). Conclusion Exercise-cognitive dual-task training may effectively improve frailty status, cognitive function, physical performance, and dual-task cognitive load in older adults with CF, suggesting its potential for broader application in this population. Clinical trial registration http://www.chictr.org.cn/ , ChiCTR2400080105.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Aging NeuroscienceSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207