A “Wii” bit of fun: The effects of adding Nintendo Wii<sup>®</sup>Bowling to a standard exercise regimen for residents of long-term care with upper extremity dysfunction
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
The aims of this randomized, single-blind crossover trial were to investigate the effect of adding a simulated bowling video game via the Nintendo Wii(®) gaming system to the standard exercise regimen of cognitively intact residents of long-term care (LTC) with upper extremity dysfunction and to identify individual characteristics that might predict improvement. Residents (n=34) were recruited through two LTC facilities in southwestern Ontario and were randomized into a standard exercise (SG) or standard exercise plus Wii bowling (Wii) arm. After 4 weeks of intervention, the groups were crossed over to the opposite arm. Outcomes included measures of pain intensity and bothersomeness, physical activity enjoyment, and a six-item measure of functional capacity designed specifically for residents of LTC. Results suggest that subjects improved on all outcomes from pre- to postintervention but that only enjoyment of activity showed a significant difference between the SG and Wii groups. Effect sizes (Cohen's d) ranged from small (0.30 for bothersomeness) to large (1.77 for functional capacity). Responders, defined as those subjects who reported any degree of improvement following the Wii intervention, were less likely to complain of stiffness or shoulder symptoms and were more likely to complain of hand symptoms than non-responders. Limitations in interpretation and recommendations for future research are presented.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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