MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166921792 · doi:10.1682/jrrd.2008.09.0136

Whole-body vibration as potential intervention for people with low bone mineral density and osteoporosis: A review

2009· review· en· W2166921792 on OpenAlexafffund
Julia O. Totosy de Zepetnek, Lora Giangregorio, B. Catharine Craven

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Vibration on Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsOsteoporosisBone mineralPhysical therapyMedicineIntervention (counseling)RehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBone densityReduction (mathematics)Whole body vibrationBone healthNursingVibrationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low bone mineral density (BMD) and osteoporosis are health concerns among older adults and individuals with physical, neurological, and/or mobility impairments. Detrimental changes in bone density and bone architecture occurring in these individuals may be due in part to the reduction/cessation of physical activity and the accompanying reduction of mechanical strain on bone. Changes in bone architecture predispose these individuals to fragility fractures during low-trauma events. Whole-body vibration (WBV) has been examined as an intervention for maintaining or improving bone mass among people with low BMD, because it may emulate the mechanical strains observed during normal daily activities. This article provides an overview of WBV including terminology, safety considerations, and a summary of the current literature; it is intended for rehabilitation healthcare providers considering WBV as a potential therapy for individuals 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)0.001
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations144
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rehabilitation Research and DevelopmentSame topicEffects of Vibration on HealthFrench-language works237,207