MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7002375327

Motivational Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Dementia Prevention: A Pilot Study to Protect the Brain and Memory

2022· article· en· W7002375327 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - PCOM (Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaPsychoeducationMotivational interviewingWorryCognitive behavioral therapyCognitionAnxietyIntervention (counseling)Depression (economics)Cognitive trainingCognitive therapy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study sought to explore the efficacy of a manualized group therapy protocol developed for this project combining empirically-supported Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Motivational Interviewing (MI), which we coined as Motivational CBT (MI-CBT), adapted for individuals at a heightened risk of cognitive decline in later adulthood. Specifically, this study investigated changes in cognition, adaptive sleep behavior, diet, exercise, depression, anxiety, and dementia knowledge as well as modifiable lifestyle factors such as Body Mass Index (BMI), hypertension, cholesterol, cigarette smoking, and medical adherence. A group of twenty-five participants (N = 25) were recruited in a large Northeastern city from a university-based family medicine practice, psychoeducation group, social media postings, and research recruitment website. A pretest-posttest experimental design was utilized. Individuals were assessed using measures to acquire baseline and outcomes on cognition (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), sleep (Sleep Disorders Symptom Checlist-25), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), anxiety (Penn State Worry Questionnaire), diet (Lent-Hope Diet Questionnaire), exercise (Step-Up mobile application), and dementia knowledge (Dementia Awareness Questionnaire) as well as a medical adherence questionnaire. Fifteen of the original twenty five participants completed posttest measures immediately following the MI-CBT group treatment and the same fifteen of the original twenty five were assessed at three-month follow-up. Statistical analysis using a one-way repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed significant improvements in insomnia sleep pathology, diet adherence, dementia knowledge, and BMI. This study provides preliminary evidence for a brief group intervention for medically at-risk individuals for dementia and offers practical suggestions on how to overcome obstacles to effective treatment.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - PCOM (Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine)Same topicFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207