Is whole-body vibration beneficial for seniors?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Normal aging processes result in losses of functional flexibility and muscular strength, which increase seniors’ fall risk and dependence on others. A relatively new intervention to reduce and/or reverse the adverse effects of aging is whole-body vibration (WBV) exercise. The purpose of this article is to review the established effects of WBV exercise exclusively with the aging population. A systematic search utilizing PubMed and Sport Discus databases uncovered journal articles specific to seniors and whole-body vibration. An extensive hand search supplemented the database results to find other relevant articles. Twenty-seven articles were obtained; all articles have been published in the past 8 years, reflecting the recent and growing interest in this area. Researchers have determined that WBV training can reduce fall risk and improve postural control in seniors. It has also been determined that WBV training can be as effective as conventional resistance training to improve seniors’ lower body strength. However, little is known about the effect of WBV exercise on flexibility and upper body strength in the aging population. More research is required to establish how effective WBV training is on these specific components and how it may affect seniors’ quality of life.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it