The impact of sarcopenia on a physical activity intervention: The lifestyle interventions and independence for elders pilot study (LIFE-P)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if sarcopenia modulates the response to a physical activity intervention in functionally limited older adults. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Three academic centers. PARTICIPANTS: Elders aged 70 to 89 years at risk for mobility disability who underwent dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for body composition at enrollment and follow-up at twelve months (N = 177). INTERVENTION: Subjects participated in a physical activity program (PA) featuring aerobic, strength, balance, and flexibility training, or a successful aging (SA) educational program about healthy aging. MEASUREMENTS: Sarcopenia as determined by measuring appendicular lean mass and adjusting for height and total body fat mass (residuals method), Short Physical Performance Battery score (SPPB), and gait speed determined on 400 meter course. RESULTS: At twelve months, sarcopenic and non-sarcopenic subjects in PA tended to have higher mean SPPB scores (8.7±0.5 and 8.7±0.2 points) compared to sarcopenic and non-sarcopenic subjects in SA (8.3±0.5 and 8.4±0.2 points, p = 0.24 and 0.10), although the differences were not statistically significant. At twelve months, faster mean gait speeds were observed in PA: 0.93±0.4 and 0.95±0.03 meters/second in sarcopenic and non-sarcopenic PA subjects, and 0.89±0.4 and 0.91±0.03 meters/second in sarcopenic and non-sarcopenic SA subjects (p = 0.98 and 0.26), although not statistically significant. There was no difference between the sarcopenic and non-sarcopenic groups in intervention adherence or number of adverse events. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that older adults with sarcopenia, who represent a vulnerable segment of the elder population, are capable of improvements in physical performance after a physical activity intervention.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".