MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144554241 · doi:10.1123/japa.19.1.62

Does Yoga Engender Fitness in Older Adults? A Critical Review

2011· review· en· W2144554241 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Physical Activity · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerontologyBalance (ability)MedicinePhysical fitnessFlexibility (engineering)Physical therapyCardiovascular fitnessPhysical activityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interest in yoga is growing, especially among older adults. This review critically summarizes the current literature to investigate whether physical fitness and function benefits are engendered through the practice of yoga in older adults. A comprehensive search yielded 507 studies; 10 studies with 544 participants (69.6 ± 6.3 yr, 71% female) were included. Large variability in yoga styles and measurement outcomes make it challenging to interpret results across studies. Studies reported moderate improvements for gait (ES = 0.54, 0.80), balance (ES = 0.25-1.61), upper/lower body flexibility (ES = 0.25, 0.70), lower body strength (ES = 0.51), and weight loss (ES = 0.73, 0.99).Yoga may engender improvements in some components of fitness in older adults. However, more evidence is needed to determine its effectiveness as an alternative exercise to promote fitness in older adults. Further investigation into yoga as an exercise activity for older adults is warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.312 · 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