MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7083625398 · doi:10.7860/jcdr/2025/80478.21737

Determining the Effect of Dual-task Training and Virtual Reality on Cognitive-motor Interference in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease: A Three-arm Single-blinded Multicentered Study Protocol

2025· article· en· W7083625398 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSynthesis and biological activity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtual realityCognitionRehabilitationTest (biology)Protocol (science)Rating scaleGaitMotor functionBalance (ability)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: In Parkinson’s Disease (PD), rehabilitation is a highpotential strategy for enhancing mental and physical abilities. Numerous studies have examined the impact of dual-task training on enhancing gait, balance, motor symptoms, and cognitive function in individuals with PD. Research have shown that virtual reality significantly enhances gait and balance in patients with PD compared to traditional therapy. However, there is a scarcity of literature that explores the combined effects of Dual-task Training (DTT) and Virtual Reality (VR) on Cognitive-Motor Interference (CMI) in individuals with PD. Need for this study: DTT effectively improves cognitive deficits, while VR enhances motor abilities in individuals with PD. Hence, it would be expected that the combined treatment can greatly benefit the patients with PD. Aim: To determine the effect of DTT and VR on CMI in patients with PD. Materials and Methods: The participants recruited in this study protocol will be between 50 and 70 years old and randomly allocated into three groups. For five times a day for four weeks, experimental group 1 will receive treatment with VR, group 2 will receive DTT and group 3 will receive combined treatment of group 1 and group 2. Outcome measures, such as a modified version of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and the Timed Up-andGo test (TUG), will be used to assess the subject pre-intervention and post-intervention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCHSame topicSynthesis and biological activityFrench-language works237,207