Effects of Unstable Surface Training on Measures of Balance in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to examine the effects of a 5-week, low-cost unstable surface balance training program in sexagenarians. Nineteen men and women (60-68 years; 83.7 +/- SD kg) were randomly assigned to a control or training group. The training group performed various balance activities on air-filled rubber disks for 5 weeks. Each thrice-weekly session was supervised, and progression was based on proficiency. While in an upright position, static balance (length of path [LOP] of the center of pressure) was assessed in both eyes-open and eyes-closed states for each leg separately as well as for both legs. Participants also performed the timed up-and-go (TUG) test and completed the Activity-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) questionnaire. A significant group x time effect for the ABC questionnaire was found (p = 0.04). Tukey post hoc analysis indicates that the balance training program increased self-perceived balance confidence (p < 0.01). No significant group x time interactions were noted for TUG or LOP. Because no objective measure of balance or function was changed, the increase in ABC may be spurious. Unstable surface training may not be effective in improving balance among persons for whom balance is not problematic. However, the large number of acute training variables in such a program leaves opportunity for further research in this paradigm.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".