MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976985946 · doi:10.1007/s00198-012-2000-3

Does frequency of resistance training affect tibial cortical bone density in older women? A randomized controlled trial

2012· article· en· W1976985946 on OpenAlexafffund
Maureen C. Ashe, Erin Gorman, Karim M. Khan, Penny Brasher, David M. L. Cooper, Heather McKay, Teresa Liu‐Ambrose

Bibliographic record

VenueOsteoporosis International · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversity of British Columbia HospitalKlohn Crippen Berger (Canada)Vancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteVancouver Coastal Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCentre for Hip Health and MobilityMichael Smith Health Research BCVancouver Foundation
KeywordsMedicineQuantitative computed tomographyRandomized controlled trialBone mineralTibiaBone densityOrthopedic surgeryPhysical therapyCortical boneRheumatologyOsteoporosisInternal medicineSurgeryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY: This randomized controlled trial evaluated the effect of resistance training frequency (0, 1, and 2 times/week) on cortical volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) at the tibia in older women. There was no mean difference in change in tibial cortical vBMD in older women who engaged in resistance training (RT) one or two times/week compared with the control group over 12 months after adjusting for baseline values. INTRODUCTION: National guidelines recommend RT two to three times/week to optimize bone health. Our objective was to determine the effect of a 12-month intervention of three different RT frequencies on tibial volumetric cortical density (CovBMD) in healthy older women. METHODS: We randomized participants to the following groups: (1) 2×/week balance and tone group (i.e., no resistance beyond body weight, BT), (2) 1×/week RT (RT1), and (3) 2×/week RT (RT2). Treatment allocation was concealed, and measurement team and the bone data analyst were blinded to group allocation. We used peripheral quantitative computed tomography to acquire one 2.3-mm scan at the 50 % tibia, and the primary outcome was CovBMD. Data were collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months, and we used linear mixed modeling to assess the effect at 12 months. RESULTS: We assessed 147 participants; 100 women provided data at all three points. Baseline unadjusted mean (SD) tibial CovBMD (in milligrams per cubic centimeter) at the 50 % site was 1,077.4 (43.0) (BT), 1,087.8 (42.0) (RT1), and 1,058.7 (60.4) (RT2). At 12 months, there were no statistically significant differences (-0.45 to -0.17 %) between BT and RT groups for mean difference in change in tibial CovBMD for exercise interventions (BT, RT1, RT2) after adjusting for baseline tibial CovBMD. CONCLUSION: We note no mean difference in change in tibial CovBMD in older women who engaged in RT one or two times/week compared with the control group over 12 months. It is unknown if RT of 3× or 4×/week would be enough to promote a statistically significant difference in change of bone density.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations35
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsteoporosis InternationalSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207