MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1550111081 · doi:10.1300/j016v26n04_05

Home-Based Circuit Training for Elderly Women

2002· article· en· W1550111081 on OpenAlexaff
Jon C. Ashmead, Jochen Bocksnick

Bibliographic record

VenueActivities Adaptation & Aging · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical therapyBicepsPhysical strengthHamstringMedicineGrip strengthCircuit trainingResistance trainingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationLeg pressStrength training

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of participation in a home-based strength-training program on muscular strength and muscular endurance were determined in elderly women. Ten healthy elderly (x = 66.4 yrs ±6.7 SD) females participated in 10 weeks of home-based resistance training. Following the guidance of exercise videos, which were produced specifically for this study, subjects exercised three times per week for twenty-five minutes per session. Each session involved a 3-5 minute warm-up, two rounds of a strengthening-circuit (utilizing tubing, body weight, and dumbbell exercises), and a 3-5 minute cool-down Pre- and post-intervention measures were taken of maximum handgrip strength and six muscular endurance tests (chest press, leg extension, seated row, hamstring curl, biceps curl, and triceps press-down). Dependent t-tests revealed statistically significant improvements for all six muscular endurance tests (p < 0.01), as well as dominant hand grip strength (p < 0.05). Participants also reported vast improvements in functional abilities of activities of daily living. These results demonstrate that a home-based strength training intervention can be considered a viable option for improving muscular fitness among older adults who may not be favorable to join community-based exercise programs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.155 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActivities Adaptation & AgingSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207