MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

THE EFFECT OF RESISTANCE TRAINING ON BONE STRENGTH IN WOMEN

2002· article· en· W2047493333 on OpenAlexaff
John C. Spence, Brendan Humphries

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineResistance trainingStrength trainingPostmenopausal womenFemoral neckModerationPhysical therapyOsteoporosisPsychological interventionLower bodyPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantitative reviews find that exercise interventions, including mainly aerobic or weight-bearing activities, are effective in promoting bone growth in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Less consensus exists for the effectiveness of resistance training on bone strength in women and no quantitative reviews have been conducted on the topic. Further, no reviews have included unpublished studies in their analysis. PURPOSE: To quantitatively summarize the effects of resistance training on bone strength in women. METHODS: Studies were located through searches of electronic databases and reference sections of major reviews on the topic. The determination of which studies to include in the analysis was based upon specific inclusion criteria. That is, studies had to include experimental and control groups in a repeated measures design. Further, since the majority of research on bone has been done with women, the analysis was limited to studies including women only or where data specific to women could be obtained. Once studies were identified for inclusion, they were collected, coded for moderator effects, and an estimate of treatment effect (d) was calculated. Fifty-six studies (45 published, 11 unpublished) revealing 189 effect sizes were included in the analysis. The three most frequently measured sites were L2-L4 (spine), the femoral neck (hip), and total body. RESULTS: The effect of resistance training on bone strength was significant but small as measured at the spine (d = 0.14), hip (d = 0.16), and total body (d = 0.28). Menopausal status moderated the influence of resistance training on total body bone strength in that postmenopausal women experienced significantly larger increases in bone mass density than did premenopausal women. CONCLUSIONS: Resistance training can bring about small increases in bone strength in women of all ages. However, in comparison to the findings of previous reviews, resistance training alone may not be the most effective activity in promoting bone growth or slowing bone loss.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicBone health and osteoporosis research→French-language works237,207→