Neuropsychological determinants of the cognitive response to combined physical and cognitive training in adults with mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, many studies have investigated the effects of non-pharmacological interventions (e.g. physical and cognitive training) on cognition in patients with mild cognitive impairment. The SYNERGIC trial showed that combining physical exercise and cognitive training leads to greater gains on the ADAS-Cog than an active control condition, and physical exercise alone. Yet not all participants showed the same cognitive gains. To date, little is known about the cognitive characteristics of responders vs non-responders to non-pharmacological interventions. OBJECTIVE: To compare baseline cognitive profiles of responders and non-responders to physical exercise training alone or in combination with cognitive training. METHODS: Of the 175 initially randomized individuals with MCI in the SYNERGIC trial, 143 completed the 6-month assessment. Regardless of randomization, participants were identified as responders if the change in ADAS-Cog-13 (T6-T0) was negative, indicating improved performances, and non-responders were determined if change was null or positive, indicating decreased performance. Composite z-scores were calculated from the baseline neuropsychological assessment: Global cognition (MoCA), Language (Boston Naming Test, Semantic Verbal fluency), Memory (MoCA delayed recall subscore), Processing Speed (TMT A, Stroop Naming, Stroop Reading), Working Memory (Digit span forward and backward), and Executive Functions (TMT B, Stroop Inhibition and Switching). RESULTS: Responders (n = 91; 72yrs, 46% female, ADAS-Cog(T0): 15.81) and non-responders (n = 52; 74.2yrs, 54% female, ADAS-Cog(T0): 15.13) were comparable for sex, baseline ADAS-Cog; a trend was observed for older age in non-responders (p = .062). Overall, at baseline, responders had better global cognition (0.14±0.94 vs -0.23±1.07) and executive function performances than non-responders (0.12±0.77 vs-0.21±0.97), ps < .05, but were otherwise comparable. In the intervention arms, the proportion of responders differed significantly: Combined (75%), Physical alone (61%), Active control (44%), (p < .05). In the Combined group, responders had better global cognition (0.38±0.96 Vs -0.20±0.97) and working memory performances (0.25±0.96 Vs -0.28±0.47). In the Physical Alone group, responders and non-responders performed similarly. In the Active Control group, responders had better processing speed performances (0.22±0.31 vs -0.33±0.79) than non-responders. CONCLUSION: Responders and non-responders appear to have different baseline cognitive profiles. These results suggest that cognitive and physical training interventions should be tailored and individualized according to baseline cognitive condition.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".