MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069143929 · doi:10.1080/j148v17n03_01

Effectiveness of Tai Chi as a Therapeutic Exercise in Improving Balance and Postural Control

2000· article· en· W2069143929 on OpenAlexaff
Wendy Chan, Doreen J. Bartlett

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In Geriatrics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalance (ability)Physical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tai Chi (TC) is an ancient form of meditative exercise used to improve and maintain good health. To determine whether TC is effective in improving balance, a meta-analysis of the published literature was completed. Two investigators independently identified articles by searching 4 databases using the keywords: Tai Chi, balance, and postural control. Seven eligible articles were evaluated using a score-sheet that quantifies methodologic rigor developed by the investigators for this study; scores ranged from 33 to 43 (out of a maximum score of 49). For each article, the effect size of each outcome measure was quantified using the d-index (d). The mean d of measures corresponding to static conditions, internal perturbations, and external perturbations were -0.07 Q0.37, 1.52 []1.13, and 0.04 []0.40 respectively. Pearson's r between d and the score was []0.70, indicating a strong negative correlation between effect size and methodologic rigor. There is moderate research-based evidence to support the use of TC to improve balance and postural control as measured by responses to internal perturbations.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.009
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Citations27
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In GeriatricsSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207