Effect of Resistance Training on Hematological Blood Markers in Older Men and Women: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the effects of resistance training on hematological blood markers in older individuals. Twenty-nine men and women participated to this study. Subjects were randomized in 2 groups: (1) control (n = 13) and (2) resistance training (n = 16). At baseline and after the intervention, subjects were submitted to a blood sample to determine their hematological profile (red blood cells, hemoglobin, hematocrit, platelets, leukocytes, neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, mean corpuscular volume, mean corpuscular hemoglobin, mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration, red cell distribution width). At baseline, no difference was observed between groups. Moreover, we found no significant difference after the intervention on any of these markers. A 6-month resistance program in healthy older individuals seems to have no beneficial nor deleterious effects on hematological blood parameters. However, resistance training was well tolerated and should be recommended for other health purposes. Further studies are needed to confirm these results in a large population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".