Home › Research › Biomarkers
Comparing the effects of olfactory-based sensory stimulation and board game training on cognition, emotion, and blood biomarkers among individuals with dementia: A pilot randomized controlled trial
Lin LJ, Li KY.. Frontiers in psychology, 2022-09-20
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Olfactory dysfunction can indicate early cognitive decline and is associated with dementia symptoms. We developed an olfactory-based sensory stimulation program and investigated its effects on cognition and emotion, and board game training were used as a comparison. In this parallel design pilot study, 30 participants with mild to moderate dementia were equal randomly assigned to the control (CONT), olfactory stimulation with cognitive training (OS), and board game (BG) groups. Two participants were withdrawn from CONT and OS groups, respectively. The intervention was a 12-week program with one 30-min session twice a week. We employed a blood-based biomarker technique and several cognitive and psychological tests to measure basal and after-intervention values. No significant differences were observed between the groups after intervention, as measured using the Mini-Mental State Examination, Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment (LOTCA), Top International Biotech Smell Identification Test, and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). The results showed that the OS group had a lower plasma Tau level than the other groups following intervention, whereas the CONT group had a significantly increased plasma amyloid ß1-42 level. OS participants had a lower concentration ratio of plasma Tau and amyloid Aß1-42 and showed more stable or improved cognition, olfactory function, and mood state. Both the OS and BG groups had a higher percentage of participants with stable or improved cognition and emotion. Taken together, these results suggest that olfactory-based sensory stimulation can be a beneficial intervention for patients with dementia. Clinical trial registration [Clinicaltrials.gov], identifier [NCT05168098].
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Lin, L. J., & Li, K. Y. (2022). Comparing the effects of olfactory-based sensory stimulation and board game training on cognition, emotion, and blood biomarkers among individuals with dementia: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1003325
Vancouver
Lin LJ, Li KY. Comparing the effects of olfactory-based sensory stimulation and board game training on cognition, emotion, and blood biomarkers among individuals with dementia: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in psychology. 2022. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1003325. PMID: 36204759.
BibTeX
@article{lin2022-36204759,
author = {Lin, L. J. and Li, K. Y.},
title = {{Comparing the effects of olfactory-based sensory stimulation and board game training on cognition, emotion, and blood biomarkers among individuals with dementia: A pilot randomized controlled trial}},
journal = {Frontiers in psychology},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1003325},
pmid = {36204759},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1003325}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Olfactory dysfunction can indicate early cognitive decline and is associated with dementia symptoms.
- No significant differences were observed between the groups after intervention, as measured using the Mini-Mental State Examination, Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment (LOTCA), Top International Biotech Smell Identification Test, and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS).
- The results showed that the OS group had a lower plasma Tau level than the other groups following intervention, whereas the CONT group had a significantly increased plasma amyloid ß1-42 level.
- Taken together, these results suggest that olfactory-based sensory stimulation can be a beneficial intervention for patients with dementia.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants30
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 52/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and effect reported 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in psychology) |
| 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 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 30 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| 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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 36204759) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 30 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100. |
| Total | 52 / 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.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “randomized-controlled-trial”
7 studies in the library carry the topic tag “randomized-controlled-trial”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 7 tagged studies.