Effects of two different doses of HIFT on physical function, cognitive performance, and quality of life in older adults with mild cognitive impairment: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objective: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) compromises physical and mental function in older adults and increases the risk of dementia. High-Intensity Functional Training (HIFT) is a promising intervention, but the optimal dose-response for improving cognitive and physical outcomes in this population remains unclear. A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 224 older adults (≥65 years) allocated to three groups: high-dose HIFT (4 sessions of 60 minutes/week), low-dose HIFT (2 sessions of 45 minutes/week), and control (non-exercise activities). The intervention lasted 12 weeks. Primary outcomes included cognitive function (MAAS, MoCA, TMT A/B, VFAT, DSST), physical fitness (Senior Fitness Test, Tinetti), and quality of life (SF-36, PSQI). A repeated-measures ANOVA was used to examine the time × group interaction. Significant time × group interactions were observed for MAAS (F = 20.50; p < 0.001; η 2 G = 0.005), MoCA (F = 17.40; p < 0.001; η 2 G = 0.034), TMT A (F = 38.60; p < 0.001; η 2 G = 0.098), and VFAT (F = 109.00; p < 0.001; η 2 G = 0.101), with greater improvements in both HIFT groups compared to control. For quality of life, significant interactions were found across all SF-36 dimensions, notably in Vitality (F = 76.20; p < 0.001; η 2 G = 0.095) and Emotional Role (F = 23.00; p < 0.001; η 2 G = 0.032). Physical fitness also improved, with significant effects in the 6-Minute Walk Test (F = 29.80; p < 0.001; η 2 G = 0.108) and 8-Foot Up-and-Go (F = 81.00; p < 0.001; η 2 G = 0.191). Both high- and low-dose HIFT programs improved cognitive, physical, and quality-of-life outcomes in older adults with MCI. The low-dose intervention achieved similar effects to the high-dose protocol, offering a time-efficient and scalable approach for implementation in clinical and community settings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".