This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

43/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Facing an unrelenting rise in dementia cases worldwide, researchers are exploring non-pharmacological ways to ameliorate cognitive decline in later life. Twenty older adults completed assessments before and after a single bout of interactive physical and cognitive exercise, by playing a neuro-exergame that required pedaling and steering to control progress in a tablet-based video game tailored to impact executive function (the interactive Physical and Cognitive Exercise System; iPACES v2). This study explored the cognitive and biomarker outcomes for participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and normative older adults after 20 min of pedal-to-play exercise. Neuropsychological and salivary assessments were performed pre- and post-exercise to assess the impact. Repeated-measures ANOVAs revealed significant interaction effects, with MCI participants experiencing greater changes in executive function and alpha-amylase levels than normative older adults; within-group changes were also significant. This study provides further data regarding cognitive effects and potential mechanisms of action for exercise as an intervention for MCI.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Nath, K., Ferguson, I., Puleio, A., Wall, K., Stark, J., Clark, S., et al. (2023). Brain Health Indicators Following Acute Neuro-Exergaming: Biomarker and Cognition in Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) after Pedal-n-Play (iPACES). Brain sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13060844

Vancouver

Nath K, Ferguson I, Puleio A, Wall K, Stark J, Clark S, et al. Brain Health Indicators Following Acute Neuro-Exergaming: Biomarker and Cognition in Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) after Pedal-n-Play (iPACES). Brain sciences. 2023. doi:10.3390/brainsci13060844. PMID: 37371324.

BibTeX

@article{nath2023-37371324,
  author  = {Nath, K. and Ferguson, I. and Puleio, A. and Wall, K. and Stark, J. and Clark, S. and Story, C. and Cohen, B. and others},
  title   = {{Brain Health Indicators Following Acute Neuro-Exergaming: Biomarker and Cognition in Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) after Pedal-n-Play (iPACES)}},
  journal = {Brain sciences},
  year    = {2023},
  doi     = {10.3390/brainsci13060844},
  pmid    = {37371324},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13060844}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Repeated-measures ANOVAs revealed significant interaction effects, with MCI participants experiencing greater changes in executive function and alpha-amylase levels than normative older adults; within-group changes were also significant.

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 43/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Brain sciences)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	3 / 5	2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 37371324)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	25 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100.
Total	43 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment from nearby years

Also tagged “indicators”

3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “indicators”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →