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 74 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background The extent to which mental and physical exercise may slow cognitive decline in adults with early signs of cognitive impairment is unknown. This article provides the rationale and methodology of the first trial to investigate the isolated and combined effects of cognitive training (CT) and progressive resistance training (PRT) on general cognitive function and functional independence in older adults with early cognitive impairment: Study of Mental and Regular Training (SMART). Our secondary aim is to quantify the differential adaptations to these interventions in terms of brain morphology and function, cardiovascular and metabolic function, exercise capacity, psychological state and body composition, to identify the potential mechanisms of benefit and broader health status effects. Methods SMART is a double-blind randomized, double sham-controlled trial. One hundred and thirty-two community-dwelling volunteers will be recruited. Primary inclusion criteria are: at risk for cognitive decline as defined by neuropsychology assessment, low physical activity levels, stable disease, and age over 55 years. The two active interventions are computerized CT and whole body, high intensity PRT. The two sham interventions are educational videos and seated calisthenics. Participants are randomized into 1 of 4 supervised training groups (2 d/wk×6 mo) in a fully factorial design. Primary outcomes measured at baseline, 6, and 18 months are the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog), neuropsychological test scores, and Bayer Informant Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (B-IADLs). Secondary outcomes are psychological well-being, quality of life, cardiovascular and musculoskeletal function, body composition, insulin resistance, systemic inflammation and anabolic/neurotrophic hormones, and brain morphology and function via Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Spectroscopy (fMRS). Discussion SMART will provide a novel evaluation of the immediate and long term benefits of CT, PRT, and combined CT and PRT on global cognitive function and brain morphology, as well as potential underlying mechanisms of adaptation in older adults at risk of further cognitive decline. Trial registration Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ANZCTRN12608000489392.

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

APA 7th

Gates, N. J., Valenzuela, M., Sachdev, P. S., Singh, N. A., Baune, B. T., Brodaty, H., et al. (2011). Study of Mental Activity and Regular Training (SMART) in at risk individuals: a randomised double blind, sham controlled, longitudinal trial. BMC geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-11-19

Vancouver

Gates NJ, Valenzuela M, Sachdev PS, Singh NA, Baune BT, Brodaty H, et al. Study of Mental Activity and Regular Training (SMART) in at risk individuals: a randomised double blind, sham controlled, longitudinal trial. BMC geriatrics. 2011. doi:10.1186/1471-2318-11-19. PMID: 21510896.

BibTeX

@article{gates2011-21510896,
  author  = {Gates, N. J. and Valenzuela, M. and Sachdev, P. S. and Singh, N. A. and Baune, B. T. and Brodaty, H. and Suo, C. and Jain, N. and others},
  title   = {{Study of Mental Activity and Regular Training (SMART) in at risk individuals: a randomised double blind, sham controlled, longitudinal trial}},
  journal = {BMC geriatrics},
  year    = {2011},
  doi     = {10.1186/1471-2318-11-19},
  pmid    = {21510896},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-11-19}
}

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.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 74/100
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 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 2 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. 43 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 74 of 100. Total 74 of 100.43 of the 58 points we could judge = 74 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size 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 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 74 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC geriatrics)
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 5 / 5 Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2011 — within 20 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 3 / 3 Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
Randomised / blinded 2 / 2 Randomised and blinded or placebo-controlled (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 21510896)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 43 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 74 out of 100.
Total 74 / 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 Prevention trials

Also in Prevention trials

86 studies in the library are filed under Prevention trials with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Prevention trials hub.

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →