Comparing Class-Based and Home-Based Exercise for Older Adults With Chronic Health Conditions: 12-Month Follow-Up of a Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the maintenance of physical activity (PA) and health gains among participants in a class-based (CB) or home-based (HB) PA intervention over a 12-month study period. METHODS: A total of 172 adults aged 50 years and older were randomly allocated to either a CB or an HB intervention, each involving an intensive 3-month phase with a 9-month follow-up period. Measures at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months included self-reported PA and health, body mass index, waist circumference (WC), blood pressure, cardiovascular endurance (6-min walk test), physical function, and functional fitness (senior fitness test). Outcomes were analyzed using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Maximum improvement was typically observed at 3 or 6 months followed by a modest diminution, with no differences between groups. For body mass index, waist circumference, 6-min walk test, and senior fitness test, there was progressive improvement through the study period. Greater improvement was seen in the CB group compared with the HB group on three items on the senior fitness test (lower body strength and endurance [29% vs. 21%, p < .01], lower body flexibility [2.8 cm vs. 0.4 cm, p < .05], and dynamic agility [14% vs. 7%, p < .05]). CONCLUSION: The interventions were largely comparable; thus, availability, preferences, and cost may better guide program choice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".