MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7119391122

Acute effect of caffeine on physical and cognitive performance in individuals with neurological diseases

2025· article· pt· W7119391122 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Natália Sachett, Patrik Nepomuceno

Bibliographic record

VenueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · 2025
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicCoffee research and impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceCognitionCognitive impairmentStroke (engine)Motor activityTest (biology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introdução: A cafeína é um importante neuroprotetor e estimulador cerebral, podendo contribuir na prevenção e no retardamento do avanço de doenças neurológicas. Objetivo: Analisar o desempenho físico e cognitivo de pessoas com doenças neurológicas com e sem a ingesta de cafeína. Materiais e Métodos: Trata-se de um estudo piloto do tipo cruzado (crossover), com modalidade de pesquisa experimental, seguindo uma abordagem quantitativa e utilizando o método mono-cego, sendo aplicado os seguintes testes: Timed Up and Go (TUG), Avaliação Cognitiva de Montreal (MoCA), Teste de Caminhada de 6 minutos (TC6m), Prova de Romberg e teste de coordenação. Resultados: Observou-se que a ingestão aguda de cafeína não gera melhora no desempenho físico e cognitivo de pessoas com diagnóstico de Acidente Vascular Cerebral (AVC) e Doença de Parkinson (DP). Conclusão: Os dados apontam que a ingestão de cafeína pré-exercício não melhora o desempenho físico e cognitivo de pessoas com AVC e DP, considerando o MoCA, testes de equilíbrio e coordenação, TUG e TC6m.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 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 venueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas)Same topicCoffee research and impactsFrench-language works237,207