Lightening the Load: The Relationship Between Gait and Cognition for Persons Living with Dementia Engaged in a Non-Pharmacological Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Relatively little research has explored whether gait and cognition are systematically associated within-persons across time, especially in persons living with dementia (PLwD). Understanding a shared mechanism between gait and cognition may help elucidate effective intervention strategies for promoting cognitive and physiological health in PLwD simultaneously. Methods: 33 PLwD enrolled in an 18-month choral intervention employing a measurement-burst design that facilitated up to 9 assessments per person. Three-level multilevel models investigated the time-varying covariation between cognition and gait velocity (indexed using a GAITRite computerized walkway) under both a walk-only and dual-task condition. Results: Significant coupling was observed between gait velocity and MMSE (mini-mental state examination) under the dual-task condition, indicating that, on occasions when an individual’s MMSE was one-unit greater than their personal average, there was a corresponding increase in dual-task gait velocity. Conclusions: This study highlights a shared within-person mechanism through which improvements in cognition may facilitate physiological advantages.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".