Nordic walking for geriatric rehabilitation: a randomized pilot trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is a need to identify effective interventions to promote walking capacity in seniors. This study compares nordic walking (NW) and usual overground walking (OW) and estimates the relative efficacy in improving walking capacity (endurance and gait speed) of the elderly. METHOD: Single blind, site-stratified, randomized, pilot trial designed to estimate the amount of change with NW and OW. Main outcomes were distance walked measured by 6-min walk test (6MWT) and comfortable gait speed measured by 5-meter walk test (5MWT). Explanatory variables were age, sex, number of comorbidities, walking aids, balance, pain, and leg function. RESULTS: NW and OW participants improved, respectively, 45 and 41 m on 6MWT and increased their gait speed by 0.14 and 0.07 m/s, respectively. NW effect sizes were moderate for 6MWT (ES = 0.53) and large for gait speed (effect size (ES) = 0.68). OW demonstrated moderate effect size for 6MWT (ES = 0.53) but a small one for gait speed (ES = 0.33). Relative efficacy, which was obtained from the ratio of NW and OW effects' sizes, was 1 for 6MWT and 2.06 for gait speed. CONCLUSIONS: NW is 106% more effective in improving gait speed among elderly than OW.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".