Suggestions for Adapting Yoga to the Needs of Older Adults with Osteoporosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise such as yoga may have health benefits for older adults with osteoporosis, but without attention to safe movement yoga can also increase the risk for injury. OBJECTIVE: The current article provides suggestions for how to adapt yoga to the needs of older adults with osteoporosis. SUGGESTIONS: A general guidelines for exercise is that older adults with osteoporosis should participate in a multicomponent exercise program, including resistance and balance training. Contraindicated movements include end-range flexion/extension/rotation of the spine and internal/external rotation of the hip. Yoga postures that should be encouraged include postures emphasizing spinal alignment and extension to mid-range in standing and on the floor. Overarching considerations for participation in yoga are that classes should be designed for higher-risk older adults, led by an instructor who has had proper training with individuals with osteoporosis, should be a noncompetitive environment, and should give attention to which postures are safe and how to transition safely.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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".