MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414822675 · doi:10.1016/j.jesf.2025.10.004

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

2025· article· en· W4414822675 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Exercise Science & Fitness · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Research Foundation
FundersUniversidad Arturo Prat
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialCognitionQuality of life (healthcare)Intervention (counseling)Cognitive InterventionClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.311 · 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