Resistance Training on Physical Performance in Disabled Older Female Cardiac Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the value of resistance training on measures of physical performance in disabled older women with coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS: The study intervention consisted of a 6-month program of resistance training in a randomized controlled trial format. Training intensity was at 80% of the single-repetition maximal lift. Control patients performed light yoga and breathing exercises. Study participants included 42 women with CHD, all >or= 65 yr of age and community dwelling. Subjects were screened by questionnaire to have low self-reported physical function. The primary study measurements related to the performance of 16 household activities of the Continuous Scale Physical Functional Performance test (CSPFP). These ranged from dressing, to kitchen and cleaning activities, to carrying groceries and walking onto a bus with luggage, and a 6-min walk. Activities were measured in time to complete a task, weight carried during a task, or distance walked. Other measures included body composition, measures of aerobic fitness and strength, and questionnaire-based measures of physical function and depression score. RESULTS: Study groups were similar at baseline by age, aerobic capacity, strength, body composition, and in performing the CSPFP. After conditioning, 13 of 16 measured activities were performed more rapidly, or with increased weight carried, compared with the control group (all P < 0.05). Maximal power for activities that involved weight-bearing over a distance, increased by 40% (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Disabled older women with CHD who participate in an intense resistance-training program improve physical capacity over a wide range of household physical activities. Benefits extend beyond strength-related activities, as endurance, balance, coordination, and flexibility all improved. Strength training should be considered an important component in the rehabilitation of older women with CHD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".