Resistance Training and White Matter Lesion Progression in Older Women: Exploratory Analysis of a 12‐Month Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether resistance training (RT) slows the progression of white matter lesions (WMLs) in older women. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a 52-week randomized controlled trial of RT, the Brain Power Study. SETTING: Community center and research center. PARTICIPANTS: Of 155 community-dwelling women aged 65 to 75 enrolled in the Brain Power Study, 54 who had evidence of WMLs on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at baseline were included in this secondary analysis. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to once-weekly RT (1× RT), twice-weekly RT (2× RT), or twice-weekly balance and tone (BAT). Assessors were blinded to participant assignments. MEASUREMENTS: WML volume was measured using MRI at baseline and trial completion. RESULTS: At trial completion, the 2× RT group had significantly lower WML volume than the BAT group (P = .03). There was no significant difference between the BAT group and the 1× RT group at trial completion (P = .77). Among participants in the two RT groups, reduced WML progression over 12 months was significantly associated with maintenance of gait speed (correlation coefficient (r) = -0.31, P = .049) but not with executive functions (r = 0.30; P = .06). CONCLUSION: Engaging in progressive RT may reduce WML progression.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".