Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Computerized multi-model training has been widely studied for its effect on delaying cognitive decline. In this study, we designed the first Chinese-version computer-based multi-model cognitive training for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients. Neuropsychological effects and neural activity changes assessed by functional MRI were both evaluated. Method MCI patients in the training group were asked to take training 3-4 times per week for 6 months. Neuropsychological and resting-state fMRI assessment were performed at baseline and at 6 months. Patients in both groups were continuously followed up for another 12 months and assessed by neuropsychological tests again. Results 78 patients in the training group and 63 patients in the control group accomplished 6-month follow-up. Training group improved 0.23 standard deviation (SD) of mini-mental state examination, while control group had 0.5 SD decline. Addenbrooke's cognitive examination-revised scores in attention (p = 0.002) and memory (p = 0.006), as well as stroop color-word test interference index (p = 0.038) and complex figure test-copy score (p = 0.035) were also in favor of the training effect. Difference between the changes of two groups after training was not statistically significant. The fMRI showed increased regional activity at bilateral temporal poles, insular cortices and hippocampus. However, difference between the changes of two groups after another 12 months was not statistically significant. Conclusions Multi-model cognitive training help MCI patients to gained cognition benefit, especially in memory, attention and executive function. Functional neuroimaging provided consistent neural activation evidence. Nevertheless, after one-year follow up after last training, training effects were not significant. The study provided new evidence of beneficial effect of multi-model cognitive training.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 69/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 40 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 69 of 100. Total 69 of 100.40 of the 58 points we could judge = 69 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for 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 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 69 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (NeuroImage. Clinical)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 11 / 12 A randomised controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”)
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 2 / 5 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 78 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 30708349)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 40 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 69 out of 100.
Total 69 / 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.

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

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.

APA 7th

Li, B. Y., He, N. Y., Qiao, Y., Xu, H. M., Lu, Y. Z., Cui, P. J., et al. (2019). Computerized cognitive training for Chinese mild cognitive impairment patients: A neuropsychological and fMRI study. NeuroImage. Clinical. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101691

Vancouver

Li BY, He NY, Qiao Y, Xu HM, Lu YZ, Cui PJ, et al. Computerized cognitive training for Chinese mild cognitive impairment patients: A neuropsychological and fMRI study. NeuroImage. Clinical. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101691. PMID: 30708349.

BibTeX

@article{li2019-30708349,
  author  = {Li, B. Y. and He, N. Y. and Qiao, Y. and Xu, H. M. and Lu, Y. Z. and Cui, P. J. and Ling, H. W. and Yan, F. H. and others},
  title   = {{Computerized cognitive training for Chinese mild cognitive impairment patients: A neuropsychological and fMRI study}},
  journal = {NeuroImage. Clinical},
  year    = {2019},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101691},
  pmid    = {30708349},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101691}
}

Related studies in Prevention trials

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →