MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect Of High Resistance Weight Training On Reported Pain In Older Adults

2005· article· en· W1985513513 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathleen Knutzen, Bethany Frazier, Gordon Chalmers, L. R. Brilla, Billie J. Lindsey

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical therapyMedicineMcGill Pain QuestionnaireSchmidt sting pain indexPopulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationVisual analogue scale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic pain is common in the older adult population and is a symptom for a wide variety of medical conditions. There is evidence that strength training can significantly reduce pain in the elderly, however the measurement of pain is typically done in an informal manner. PURPOSE To examine the effect of a progressive, whole-body, high resistance weight training program on reported pain in older adults. METHODS Ninety-seven participants ranging in age from 60–83 years completed the McGill Pain Questionnaire pre and post an eight week time period. Seventy nine of the adults also completed a high intensity resistance training period three days a week on eleven different exercises (triceps press, bicep curl, lat row, bench press, hip flexion, hip extension, hip abduction, hip adduction, leg press, dorsiflexion, plantarflexion) with a progression up to loads representing 80% of one-repetition maximum. Pain was assessed using the McGill Pain Questionnaire that measured pain rating index total, pain rating index sensory, pain rating index affective, pain rating index evaluative, pain rating index miscellaneous, number of words chosen, present pain intensity, and number of painful areas. RESULTS Strength was significantly improved across all eleven exercises over the eight week time period with strength gains ranging from 62% to 119%. In the training group there were significant decreases in pain rating index total (p = .000), pain rating index sensory (p = .003), pain rating index evaluative (p = .003), pain rating index miscellaneous (p=.001), number of words chosen (p = .000), and number of painful areas (p = .006). There were no significant differences for present pain intensity (0.883) and pain rating index affective (p=0.045). There were no pre and post differences in the pain scores of the control group. CONCLUSIONS These results suggest that eight weeks of progressive, whole-body weight training has a positive impact on perception of pain in older adults.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207