Baseline characteristics of 12-week & 18th-week follow-up of cognitive motor dual-task training in type 2 diabetes mellitus subjects.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A randomized controlled, and parallel three-arm trial with patient blinding. A total of 93 patients with T2DM (type 2 diabetes mellitus) aged 40-65 of either gender with HbA1c > 6.5 mmol/dL and more than 5 years of education. The eligible subjects underwent for baseline assessment of Gender, Age, duration of disease, education levels, HbA1c levels, BMI and Mini-Mental State Examination score. Then the subjects were allocated to each group through a random lottery method. After allocation, the subjects in experimental group A received CMDBT (cognitive motor dual-task blindfold training), experimental group B received CMDT (cognitive motor dual-task training), and the control group received conventional therapy of aerobic and resistance training for 3 sessions/week for 12 consecutive weeks. Participants were evaluated at 3 different times (baseline, completion at 12 weeks, and follow-up at 18 weeks) for every outcome. Primary outcome measures are the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the Trail Making Test, and the WHO QoL BREF.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".