The Beneficial Effects of Group‐Based Exercises on Fall Risk Profile and Physical Activity Persist 1 Year Postintervention in Older Women with Low Bone Mass: Follow‐Up After Withdrawal of Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether exercise-induced reductions in fall risk are maintained in older women 1 year after the cessation of three types of interventions--resistance training, agility training, and general stretching. DESIGN: One-year observational study. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-eight women aged 75 to 85 with low bone mass. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome measure was fall risk, measured using the Physiological Profile Assessment tool. Secondary outcome measures were current physical activity level, assessed using the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly, and formal exercise participation, assessed using an interview. RESULTS: At the end of the follow-up, the fall risk of former participants of all three exercise programs was maintained (i.e., still reduced) from trial completion. Mean fall risk value at the end of follow-up was 43.3% lower than mean baseline value in former participants of the resistance-training group, 40.1% lower in the agility-training group, and 37.4% lower in the general stretching group. Physical activity levels were also maintained from trial completion. Specifically, there was a 3.8% increase in physical activity from baseline for the resistance-training group, a 29.2% increase for the agility-training group, and a 37.7% increase for the general stretching group. CONCLUSION: After three types of group-based exercise programs, benefits are sustained for at least 12 months without further formal exercise intervention. Thus, these 6-month exercise interventions appeared to act as a catalyst for increasing physical activity with resultant reductions in fall risk profile that were maintained for at least 18 months in older women with low bone mass.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".