Hormone replacement and strength training positively influence balance during gait in post-menopausal females: a pilot study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effects of hormone replacement combined with strength training on improving dynamic balance control in post-menopausal women. Thirty one participating post-menopausal women were divided into three groups (hormone replacement (HR), non-hormone replacement (NR) and control (CR) group). HR and NR groups were tested for muscle strength and balance control during gait, prior to training and following a six week lower body strength training program. Quadriceps muscle strength was evaluated as isokinetic peak torque (60°·sec(-1)) using a CYBEX NORM and balance control was evaluated by center of mass - base of support relationships and ground reaction forces during gait perturbations. Only the HR group showed significantly (p < 0.05) improved balance control during the initial phase of unexpected gait termination and single stance periods while walking across uneven terrain following training. The strength gains in the HR group tended to be greater than in the NR group over the six week training program, although neither group showed statistically significant increases. The CR group showed no significant differences between testing times. HR in post-menopausal females may enhance dynamic balance control when combined with a strength training program, even if no statistically significant gains in strength are achieved. Key PointsThis study provides evidence that even a short modest strength training program can enhance dynamic balance control in older adult females taking hormone replacement.If potential benefits of hormone replacement therapy extend to enhancing muscle strength then this would be important in designing optimal interventions for both strength and balance for this cohort.Future work should explore the influence of hormone replacement therapy on other dynamic balance or functional tasks.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".