Effects of Resistance Training on Functional Ability in Elderly Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Determine the effects of 16 weeks of strength training on measures of functional ability in elderly who are functionally limited. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental trial in which elderly volunteers were assigned to either an exercise group or a control group. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-seven participants (65-93 years) living independently but with some functional limitations. INTERVENTION: Thirteen different strength training exercises using Thera-Band resistive bands (Hygenic Corporation, Akron, Ohio). The program was 16 weeks in duration, and the frequency was three times per week. Participants exercised in a group setting one time per week and were given a home exercise book to follow for two additional sessions per week. MEASURES: Functional ability was operationalized to include a variety of measures related to functional ability that impact activities of daily living, morbidity, and mortality in the elderly, including upper- and lower-body strength and gait. ANALYSIS: Intervention effects were analyzed using a 2 (groups: exercise group vs. control group) × 3 (time: baseline vs. mid vs. post) analysis of variance. RESULTS: The exercise group demonstrated significant improvements in upper-body strength as measured by biceps curl (F[2,140] = 39.870; p < .05) and lower-body strength as measured by chair sit-to-stand (F[2,124] = 25.887; p < .05). Gait velocity (F[2,140] = 37.317; p < .05) and step length (F[2,140] = 4.182; p < .05) both increased for the exercise group at week 9, but this increase disappeared by week 17. Compared with minimal changes in the control group, the exercise group demonstrated significant improvements in upper-body strength as measured by biceps curl and lower-body strength as measured by chair sit-to-stand. CONCLUSION: Some measures of function ability were improved after a 16-week structured exercise program for functionally limited elderly. Because functional ability has been inversely correlated with short-term morbidity and the need for assisted living among older adults, providing opportunities to exercise is crucial to future functioning and independence of the elderly population.
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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".