MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Does Frequency of Resistance Training Effect Cortical Density at the Tibia in Older Women?: A pQCT Study

2011· article· en· W2323754247 on OpenAlexaff
Maureen C. Ashe, Erin Gorman, Karim M. Khan, David M. L. Cooper, Penny Brasher, Heather McKay, Teresa Liu‐Ambrose

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanQuest University CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuantitative computed tomographyRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyTibiaBone densitySurgeryOsteoporosisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ACSM guidelines recommend resistance training (RT) 2 to 3 times/week to optimize bone health. However, the effect of the frequency of RT on bone outcomes has not been evaluated in older community-dwelling women. PURPOSE: Our primary objective was to determine the effect of a 12-month program of three different RT frequencies (0, 1 and 2 times/week) on tibial cortical bone volumetric density (CovBMD) in healthy, community dwelling women aged 65-75 years. METHODS: This was an a priori secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial (primary outcome was cognitive function). We randomized participants to one of three groups: (i) twice a week balance and tone group (i.e. no resistance other than body weight; BT); (ii) once a week RT program (RT1); and (iii) twice a week RT program (RT2). We used Keiser air-pressure resistance machines (Keiser Corporation, USA) for strengthening the upper and lower extremities. All exercise classes were delivered in groups of 8-10 participants and continued for 12 months. We used peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT; Stratec XCT 2000, Germany) to acquire one 2.5 mm scan at the 50% site of the left tibia. Data were collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months. We used ANCOVA to determine the effect of the exercise intervention on tibial CovBMD at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: We assessed 140 participants at baseline and 100 women provided data at all three time points (71% compliance). Baseline mean age for RT2 (n=34) and RT1 (n=35) groups was 69±3 years, and 70±3 years for BT (n=31). BMI for RT2 was 27±5, 26±5 for RT1 and 26±4 for BT group. Baseline mean Six-Minute Walk Test (meters) was 508±107 (RT2), 529±61 (RT1), and 537±68 (BT). The baseline mean tibial CovBMD (mg/cm3) at the 50% site was: 1055.8±65.2 (RT2), 1094.7±34.2 (RT1), and 1080.3±44.2 (BT). At 6 months the percent change in tibial CovBMD for the RT2 group= -0.2%; RT1= -0.04%; and BT= 0.2% for BT. From baseline to 12 months the percent change in tibial CovBMD for the RT2 group was -0.3%; RT1= -0.1%; and BT= -0.2%. After adjusting for baseline tibial CovBMD, there were no significant differences between groups at 6 months or 12 months. CONCLUSION: Tibial cortical bone density for all exercise interventions (RT2, RT1 and BT) was maintained in older community dwelling women over 12 months.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicBone health and osteoporosis research→French-language works237,207→