MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132647456 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afn109

Effects of 16-week Tai Chi intervention on postural stability and proprioception of knee and ankle in older people

2008· article· en· W2132647456 on OpenAlexaff
Jing Xian Li, Dong Xu, Youlian Hong

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProprioceptionMedicineAnklePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyIntervention (counseling)Balance (ability)SurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sir—A decline in proprioception with ageing has been found to be associated with an increased propensity in elderly individuals to fall [1]. As a traditional Chinese exercise, Tai Chi (TC) has demonstrated its beneficial effects on health, particularly on the maintenance of balance control in older people [2]. Among the factors that relate to balance control, studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of TC on muscle strength and fitness; the impacts of TC on proprioception has not been well documented [3, 4]. To more clearly understand the benefits of TC on postural stability, information about the impacts of regular TC exercise on proprioception is needed. Hence we designed the present study to examine the effects of a 16-week TC training programme on postural stability and proprioceptive function in elderly subjects. Community-dwelling adults without previous TC experience, aged 60 years or older, were recruited through questionnaire administration and follow-up interviews. Subjects were not included in this investigation if they reported any of the following conditions: falls and/or dizziness in the last 6 months, neurological diseases which impaired mobility, dementia, cardiovascular disease which is symptomatic during moderate exercise, poorly controlled hypertension, and use of specific medications which are known to impair balance. A total of 50 elderly people, who regularly participate in social and recreational activities outside their home on a minimum of two occasions per week, participated in this project. The subjects were randomly divided into two groups: the TC intervention group (25) and the control group (25).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations84
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207