Association between the cost of dual-task and cognitive function in older people with Motoric Cognitive Risk Syndrome: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Dual-task mobility tests are considered more sensitive than single-task assessments for detecting early cognitive impairment in older adults. However, their association with cognitive performance in individuals with Motoric Cognitive Risk syndrome (MCR) has not been well established. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between the cost of dual-task testing in the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test with different cognitive demands and cognitive function in older individuals with MCR. METHODOLOGY: Fifty-nine older individuals with MCR were included (89.8% women; mean age: 70 years). The cost of dual-task testing was assessed in two conditions: TUG with counting backwards and TUG with animal naming. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Trail Making Test Part A (TMT-A), Digit Span, and Verbal Fluency tests. Multiple linear regressions, adjusted for age, sex, and education, were conducted. RESULTS: The dual-task cost of the TUG with counting backwards correlated positively with performance in attention and processing speed (TMT-A; r = 0.52; β = 0.17 [0.05 to 0.29]) and negatively with global cognitive performance (MoCA; r = -0.48; β = -1.18 [-2.22 to -0.11]). The TUG with animal naming showed no significant associations with cognitive tests. CONCLUSION: The dual-task cost during the TUG with counting backwards was moderately associated with attention, processing speed, and global cognition in older adults with MCR. No significant associations were observed for the TUG with animal naming. These findings highlight that the type of cognitive demand used in dual-task testing may influence the degree of motor-cognitive interference.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".