The Effect of Adding Core Stability Training to a Standard Balance Exercise Program on Sit to Stand Performance in Older Adults: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared sit to stand (STS) performance between older adults in a nine-week training program focusing on core stability exercises to enhance balance and postural control (EB) versus standard balance (SB) exercises. Repetitions in 30 s (STSreps) and kinematic performance (vertical and horizontal momentum, and margin of stability) were measured pre and postintervention in 23 older adults with at least one fall risk factor. Although both groups combined improved STSreps (P = .001) and vertical momentum (.008), a significant between-group difference was observed for completers only (MANCOVA of posttest group differences, with pretest scores as covariates; P = .04). EB demonstrated a greater but nonsignificant improvement in vertical momentum (P = .095). In conclusion, core stability training added to SB did not result in STS reps improvement. Compliance may modify these results and future larger sample studies should evaluate the impact of core stability training on STS biomechanics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".