MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Does Frequency Of Resistance Training Effect Proximal Femur Bone Mineral Density In Community-dwelling Senior Women?

2011· article· en· W2327418951 on OpenAlexaff
Anna M. Chudyk, Maureen C. Ashe, Heather McKay, Karim M. Khan, Teresa Liu‐Ambrose

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBone mineralRandomized controlled trialBone densityFemurPhysical therapyOsteoporosisInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Longitudinal studies suggest proximal femur areal bone mineral density (aBMD) decreases with age; resistance training (RT) may offset this loss in older women. ACSM recommends older adults engage in RT 2-3 ×/week to maintain bone mass, but few studies investigated the effect of RT frequency on BMD. PURPOSE: To compare the effect of RT frequency (0, 1, or 2 ×/week) on total proximal femur aBMD in post-menopausal women. METHODS: We conducted an a priori secondary analysis of a 12 month randomized controlled trial whose primary outcome was cognitive function. We enrolled 155 community-dwelling women and randomized them to 1 of 3 group-based exercise interventions: (i) twice-weekly RT (RT2); once-weekly RT (RT1); or (iii) twice-weekly control group with balance and tone exercises (BT). Our primary outcome was aBMD (g/cm2) of the left total proximal femur by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). We measured participants at baseline, midpoint, and 12 months. We assessed between-group differences for outcomes using ANCOVA. RESULTS: At baseline, 144 women were assessed by DXA; 111 women returned for DXA assessment at both follow-ups (n: BT= 33, RT1= 39, RT2= 39). At baseline, mean age was 69y for both RT1 and RT2 groups and 70y for BT; mean aBMD (g/cm2) for groups was: BT= 0.813± 0.105, RT1= 0.825± 0.125, and RT2= 0.809± 0.134; mean 6 minute walk test (meters) for BT= 532± 77, RT1= 527± 58, and RT2= 512± 103; median Functional Comorbidity Index score was 2 for all groups; and mean Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE) score for BT= 128± 52, RT1= 117± 60 and RT2= 130± 63. After controlling for baseline aBMD, there were no differences in aBMD or percent change in aBMD between groups at midpoint and final assessment. The greatest percent change in total proximal femur aBMD for all groups occurred between baseline and 6 months (BT= 1.64%, RT1= 1.74%, RT2= 1.33%). There were no significant between group differences in self-reported activity levels (PASE) outside of the interventions at either follow-up. CONCLUSION: Cross-sectional and cohort studies suggest that community-dwelling older women lose approximately 1% of their bone mass annually. Although there were no differences between groups in bone density at the proximal femur, it was maintained in all three groups; further study is needed to elucidate this effect.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.283 · 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→