Group Neuropsychological Rehabilitation of institutionalized elderly with Cognitive Impairment no Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Aging is often characterized by cognitive impairment that sometimes exceed the expected for normal aging. These changes that do not meet criteria for dementia establish the cognitive impairment no dementia (CIND) that, regardless of etiology, has a high conversion rate to dementia.Aims: To investigate the effect of a Group Neuropsychological Rehabilitation Program (GNRP) in cognitive, executive and emotional functioning of institutionalized elderly with CIND.Methods: The sample included 24 elderly individuals, aged between 67 and 92 years. Twelve elderly underwent the GNRP and twelve elderly stayed on a waiting list. The study had a quasi-experimental design and was blind in the re-assessment. The ten interventions took 90 minutes per session, once a week. The pre and post-intervention assessment included the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Frontal Assessment Battery, the Geriatric Anxiety Inventory, and the Loneliness Scale.Results: The ANCOVAs showed a significant effect of the GNRP on the improvement of executive functioning (ɳ2 = 0.26) and feelings of loneliness (ɳ2 = 0.77), both with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the baseline and the post-intervention. The comparison deteriorated in the cognitive functioning and depressive symptoms (p < 0.05), suggesting that the GNRP prevents that deterioration, but ANCOVA was significant only for cognitive functioning (ɳ2 = 0.26).Conclusion: The GNRP in institutionalized elderly with CIND offers promising results and shows efficacy in improving executive functioning and feelings of loneliness. Larger and more diverse samples and the study of the generalization and maintenance of long-term results are now needed.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".