The Effects of Lower Extremity Strengthening Delivered in the Workplace on Physical Function and Work-Related Outcomes Among Desk-Based Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a workplace leg-strengthening program on self-reported function, physical capacity, and work-related outcomes among desk-based workers. METHODS: Forty-three desk-based workers were randomized to a 12-week exercise program or no exercise control. The primary outcome was change in self-reported physical function on the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) from baseline to follow-up. Secondary outcomes were physical capacity (mobility, strength), self-reported outcomes (pain, depressive symptoms), and work-related outcomes (resilience, work ability). RESULTS: The exercise group showed greater improvements in LEFS and mobility. No significant between-group differences existed in knee strength or remaining self-reported and work-related outcomes. CONCLUSION: Workplace implemented leg-strengthening exercises are effective at improving self-reported and physical health outcomes of desk-based workers. Moving forward, occupational exercise interventions may be essential to enhance worker longevity among the aging, sedentary workforce.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".