MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Rationale and protocol of the LEAD 2.0 study: a randomized controlled trial assessing the feasibility of a virtually delivered 6-month exercise and nutrition intervention in older adults with subjective cognitive decline (SCD)

2025· other· en· W6940472647 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of OttawaToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Cognitive declineAerobic exercisePsychological interventionCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background With growing prevalence of dementia worldwide, dementia risk reduction is a key interest of the World Health Organization’s Global Dementia Action Plan. Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is a prominent predictor of future dementia diagnosis. Therefore, people with SCD are an important group for dementia prevention intervention. Exercise and healthy diet are associated with a 30–60% decrease in dementia risk in longitudinal studies. Technological advances yield the potential of trials that deliver lifestyle interventions virtually, reaching people in a wide geographical spread. However, the feasibility of large-scale virtual trials still needs to be established. Objective This trial aims to examine the feasibility of a factorial randomized controlled trial exploring a 6-month virtual, exercise and healthy diet intervention. Secondary objectives will examine whether feasibility outcomes vary by gender or technology access. Methods We will recruit 140 older adults (65 + years) with SCD, who will receive a combination of Aerobic and Resistance Exercise (EX) or Stretching and Toning (STRETCH) and either Diet Counseling (DIET) or Brain Health Education (ED). Participants will be randomized to four weekly hours of one of four intervention arms: (1) EX and DIET; (2) EX and ED; (3) STRETCH and DIET; or (4) STRETCH and ED. EX will include moderate intensity aerobic and resistance training. DIET will instruct participants in brain healthy food choices. Assessments will be performed virtually at baseline, 6 months (post-intervention), and 12 months. Feasibility will be measured by recruitment rate, adherence, and retention. Discussion Established feasibility will set the stage for a definitive trial. Feasibility results will also inform future virtual programs/services. In the long-term, if the interventions are feasible and beneficial, this intervention model could scale up and spread quickly to reach at-risk individuals for the purpose of dementia risk reduction. Trial registration The Lifestyle, Exercise, and Diet (LEAD 2.0) study is registered with the US National Institutes of Health clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT06078748). This report complies with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.070
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0700.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0110.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.014

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions→French-language works237,207→