The Effect Of Visual Deprivation During Cognitive Motor Dual Task Training On Cognitive Function In Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is linked to cognitive dysfunction, and cognitive motor dual-task blindfold training (CMDBT) may enhance cognition by engaging procedural memory centers. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of CMDBT combined with aerobic and resistance exercises on cognitive function in individuals with T2DM. Methods: A single-center, parallel-group randomized controlled trial with pre- and post-intervention assessments was conducted. Sixty two adults with T2DM were randomly allocated to an experimental group (CMDBT plus moderate-intensity aerobic and resistance training; n = 31) or a control group (aerobic and resistance training only; n = 31). Both groups trained three times per week for 12 weeks. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) at baseline and after the 12-week intervention. Results: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between groups (all p > 0.05). After 12 weeks, the experimental group showed a mean MoCA increase of 3.32 ± 1.74 to 29.13 ± 0.76 (p < 0.0001), exceeding the minimal clinically important difference of 2.3 points, whereas the control group improved by 0.94 points (25.77 ± 1.45 to 26.71 ± 1.37; p = 0.0006). The adjusted between-group difference was 2.38 points (p = 0.0001), demonstrating a significantly greater cognitive benefit with CMDBT. Conclusion: CMDBT combined with conventional exercises is more effective than CMDT or conventional therapy alone in enhancing cognition and in T2DM, supporting its integration into rehabilitation programs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".