MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117357612 · doi:10.71920/unsa.2020.11138

Eficacia del programa de entrenamiento cognitivo “Mente Sana” para adultos mayores analfabetos con deterioro cognitivo leve

2020· dissertation· es· W7117357612 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrea Elena Pomareda Vera, Yaneth Del Rosario Palo Villegas

Bibliographic record

VenueRepositorio Institucional - UNS · 2020
Typedissertation
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicAging, Health, and Disability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive impairmentCognitionHealthy agingTest (biology)Cognitive decline

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El envejecimiento puede conducir a alteraciones cognitivas y funcionales, que a veces limitan a los adultos mayores en su desarrollo social, especialmente a los grupos de adultos mayores analfabetos que reciben poca atención de los sistemas de salud. En este contexto, la presente investigación propone el programa de entrenamiento cognitivo "MENTE SANA" para mejorar las funciones cognitivas de los adultos mayores analfabetos en Arequipa (Perú). Es un tipo de investigación cuasiexperimental con diseño de pretest / post test con un grupo control homogéneo. La muestra estaba compuesta por adultos mayores de 60 años y de género femenino. Se utilizó la Evaluación Cognitiva de Montreal (MoCA) para detectar el nivel de deterioro cognitivo en adultos mayores analfabetos. El programa de 50 sesiones se aplicó diariamente a todos los adultos mayores con deterioro cognitivo leve que fueron seleccionados para el estudio. Se descubrió que el grupo tratamiento mejoró sus funciones cognitivas en comparación con el grupo control. Estos resultados ayudan a proponer programas de entrenamiento cognitivo adaptados para personas analfabetas.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.291 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRepositorio Institucional - UNSSame topicAging, Health, and DisabilityFrench-language works237,207