MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140324049

Community-based exercise program reduces risk factors for falls in 65- to 75-year-old women with osteoporosis: randomized controlled trial.

2002· article· en· W2140324049 on OpenAlexaff
Nick D. Carter, Karim M. Khan, Heather McKay, Moira A. Petit, C Waterman, Ari Heinonen, Meghan G Donaldson, Arthur I. Mallinson, Lenore Riddell, Karen Kruse, Jerilynn C. Prior, Leon Flicker

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyConfidence intervalBalance (ability)OsteoporosisPosturographyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Exercise programs improve balance, strength and agility in elderly people and thus may prevent falls. However, specific exercise programs that might be widely used in the community and that might be "prescribed" by physicians, especially for patients with osteoporosis, have not been evaluated. We conducted a randomized controlled trial of such a program designed specifically for women with osteoporosis. METHODS: We identified women 65 to 75 years of age in whom osteoporosis had been diagnosed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in our hospital between 1996 and 2000 and who were not engaged in regular weekly programs of moderate or hard exercise. Women who agreed to participate were randomly assigned to participate in a twice-weekly exercise class or to not participate in the class. We measured baseline data and, 20 weeks later, changes in static balance (by dynamic posturography), dynamic balance (by a timed figure-eight run) and knee extension strength (by dynamometry). RESULTS: Of 93 women who began the trial, 80 completed it. Before adjustment for covariates, the intervention group tended to have greater, although nonsignificant, improvements in static balance (mean difference 4.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.3% to 11.0%), dynamic balance (mean difference 3.3%, 95% CI -1.7% to 8.4%) and knee extension strength (mean difference 7.8%, 95% CI -5.4% to 21.0%). Mean crude changes in the static balance score were -0.85 (95% CI -2.91 to 1.21) for the control group and 1.40 (95% CI -0.66 to 3.46) for the intervention group. Mean crude changes in figure-eight velocity (dynamic balance) were 0.08 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.14) m/s for the control group and 0.14 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.20) m/s for the intervention group. For knee extension strength, mean changes were -0.58 (95% CI -3.02 to 1.81) kg/m for the control group and 1.03 (95% CI -1.31 to 3.34) kg/m for the intervention group. After adjustment for age, physical activity and years of estrogen use, the improvement in dynamic balance was 4.9% greater for the intervention group than for the control group (p = 0.044). After adjustment for physical activity, cognitive status and number of fractures ever, the improvement in knee extension strength was 12.8% greater for the intervention group than for the control group (p = 0.047). The intervention group also had a 6.3% greater improvement in static balance after adjustment for rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis, but this difference was not significant (p = 0.06). INTERPRETATION: Relative to controls, participants in the exercise program experienced improvements in dynamic balance and strength, both important determinants of risk for falls, particularly in older women with osteoporosis.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations223
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207