Whole body vibration in cystic fibrosis--a pilot study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In cystic fibrosis (CF), bone mass deficits as well as a lack of muscle mass and force have been described. The bone mass deficits are thought to be at least in part secondary to the reduced muscle mass. Whole body vibration has recently been suggested as an effective technique to increase muscle force and power. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the compliance and safety of a side-alternating, whole body vibration platform in patients with CF and to assess its effects on muscle force, muscle power, bone mass and lung function. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eleven adult CF patients participated in a six-months home-based training programme on a whole body vibration platform. Muscle force and power were assessed with three standard manoeuvres on a ground reaction force plate at regular intervals. Bone densitometry was performed at the spine, the radius and the tibia using quantitative computerized tomography. RESULTS: Regular cardiovascular monitoring did not show any critical drop in oxygen saturation or blood pressure. Lung function remained relatively constant with a median FEV1 change [% of norm] of -3.1% (range -7-20). Trabecular density at the spine and parameters of bone density and geometry at the radius and tibia did not show consistent changes. A median decrease of -0.3% (-31.0-17.9) for muscle force and a median increase of 4.7% (-16.4-74.5) for muscle power and 6.6% (-0.9-48.3) for velocity was noted in the two-leg jump. In the one-leg jump, a median increase of 6.7% (-8.5-24.3) for muscle force was measured. CONCLUSIONS: Whole body vibration was well tolerated in the majority of the study participants. Most patients were able to increase peak force in the one-leg jump. In the two-leg jump, velocity and muscle power increased with equal or decreased muscle force. This may indicate an improvement in neuromuscular and intramuscular co-ordination (and therefore efficiency) with less muscle force necessary to generate the same power.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".