Identification of TIMP1 as a Key Regulator of Ferroptosis in Ulcerative Colitis Through Bioinformatics and Functional Experiments.

Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) represents a clinical condition of increasing epidemiological relevance, defined by a cognitive decline that exceeds what is expected for the patient’s age and educational level, yet does not yet meet the diagnostic criteria for dementia [,]. Given the high prevalence and the risk of progression toward Alzheimer’s disease, identifying sustainable tools for the monitoring and support of this population is crucial [,]. In this context, Extended Reality (XR) technologies have emerged as promising paradigms for delivering cognitive and motor interventions [,]. However, the scientific literature often treats ‘Virtual Reality’ as a monolithic construct [], overlooking how diverse hardware interfaces significantly influence User Experience (UX) and, consequently, the clinical feasibility of the interventions themselves []. To effectively guide the selection of clinical platforms, it is essential to distinguish between the varying degrees of immersion along the virtuality continuum, as each presents specific barriers and relative strengths documented in the literature. Acceptance and usability are essential predictive factors for the long-term sustainability of any technological intervention, particularly in gerontechnology []. Technology acceptance is not homogeneous within the elderly population. Interindividual differences in prior experience and digital competence play a crucial role as moderating variables. Digital Literacy (DL), defined as the ability to access, manage, and comprehend digital information, is a determining factor for the adoption of complex interfaces [,]. In addition to DL, demographic and experience variables act as covariates and potential moderators of technology acceptance. Variables such as age, education level, and prior history of interaction with VR or touchscreen technology may be critical determinants of acceptance among people with MCI. Although usability and clinical efficacy are commonly emphasized, the translation of VR/XR interventions into routine clinical practice also depends on practical deployment and sustainability considerations. Implementation studies and scoping reviews indicate that adoption of VR in healthcare is influenced not only by patient engagement, but also by organizational readiness, staff training, technical support, infrastructure, cost, and workflow integration [,]. These issues are particularly relevant when comparing different XR device–task configurations, because non-immersive displays, CAVE systems, and HMDs differ substantially in initial layout/setup costs, space requirements, hardware longevity, cleaning and sanitation procedures, software updating, troubleshooting burden, and availability of technical support. Consequently, evaluating technology acceptance without considering real-world sustainability may lead to overly optimistic assumptions about the suitability of specific XR device–task configurations for routine cognitive care [,]. Future studies should therefore include implementation-oriented outcomes, such as staff time, maintenance requirements, setup burden, device durability, sanitation procedures, and cost-effectiveness, alongside user acceptability and clinical outcomes.