MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2539345815 · doi:10.14740/jocmr2767w

Exercise Intervention for Anti-Sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling Older People

2016· review· en· W2539345815 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ryo Miyazaki, Taro Takeshima, Kazuhiko Kotani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSarcopeniaMedicinePsychological interventionGerontologyMuscle massRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyIntervention (counseling)MEDLINEPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sarcopenia is an age-related health problem in general communities. Effective exercise programs against sarcopenia remain necessary for community-dwelling older people. In order to summarize the available knowledge on this subject, we collected English articles from a MEDLINE/Pubmed database examining the effects of exercise interventions on sarcopenia-related outcome measures in community-dwelling older people. When nine articles, including eight randomized controlled trials, were reviewed, most studies demonstrated significant improvements in some outcome measures. Indeed, a significant improvement in the muscle mass in one study, muscle strength in two studies and physical performance in two studies was reported among five studies using exercise (E) alone. A significant improvement in the muscle mass in two studies, muscle strength in one study and physical performance in two studies was also reported among four studies using exercise plus nutritional supplementation (EN). Notably, the EN studies appeared to have less extensive exercise interventions than the E studies. One EN study further exhibited significant improvements in all outcome measures. Collectively, exercise could be used as anti-sarcopenic strategies and nutritional interventions when combined with exercise might play a compensated or perhaps a comprehensive role among community-dwelling older people. Limited studies exist and more studies are required for the optimum programs in the community settings.

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)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.625
GPT teacher head0.691
Teacher spread0.066 · 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

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207