MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895039295 · doi:10.1186/s11556-018-0199-5

Effects of physical, virtual reality-based, and brain exercise on physical, cognition, and preference in older persons: a randomized controlled trial

2018· article· en· W2895039295 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thwe Zar Chi Htut, Vimonwan Hiengkaew, Chutima Jalayondeja, Mantana Vongsirinavarat

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Review of Aging and Physical Activity · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMahidol University
KeywordsCognitionBerg Balance ScalePhysical therapyBalance (ability)Physical medicine and rehabilitationContentmentMedicineSports medicineTimed Up and Go testPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical exercise (PE), virtual reality-based exercise (VRE), and brain exercise (BE) can influence physical and cognitive conditions in older persons. However, it is not known which of the three types of exercises provide the best effects on physical and cognitive status, and which exercise is preferred by older persons. This study compared the effects of PE, VRE, and BE on balance, muscle strength, cognition, and fall concern. In addition, exercise effort perception and contentment in older persons was evaluated. Eighty-four older persons ( n = 84) were randomly selected for PE, VRE, BE, and control groups. The exercise groups received 8-week training, whereas the control group did not. Balance was assessed by Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and Timed Up and Go test (TUG), muscle strength by 5 Times Sit to Stand (5TSTS) and left and right hand grip strength (HGS), cognition by Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Timed Up and Go test Cognition (TUG-cog), fall concern by Fall Efficacy Scale International (FES-I), exercise effort perception by Borg category ratio scale (Borg CR-10), and exercise contentment by a questionnaire. After exercise, PE significantly enhanced TUG and 5TSTS to a greater extent than VRE (TUG; p = 0.004, 5TSTS; p = 0.027) and BE (TUG; p = 0,012, 5TSTS; p < 0.001). VRE significantly improved MoCA ( p < 0.001) and FES-I ( p = 0.036) compared to PE, and 5TSTS ( p < 0.001) and FES-I ( p = 0.011) were improved relative to BE. MoCA was significantly enhanced by BE compared to PE ( p < 0.001) and both MoCA and TUG-cog were improved compared to VRE ( p = 0.04). PE and VRE significantly ( p < 0.001) increased Borg CR-10 in all exercise sessions, whereas BE showed a significant improvement ( p < 0.001) in the first 4 sessions. Participants had a significantly greater satisfaction with BE than controls ( p = 0.006), and enjoyed VRE and BE more than PE ( p < 0.001). Subjects in all exercise groups exhibited benefits compared to the control group ( p < 0.001). PE provided the best results in physical tests, VRE produced measurable improvements in physical and cognition scores, while BE enhanced cognition ability in older persons. Older persons preferred VRE and BE compared to PE. Both exercises are suggested to older persons to improve physical and cognitive conditions.

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations101
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Review of Aging and Physical ActivitySame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207