Effects of Whole‐Body Vibration Therapy on Distal Tibial Myotendinous Density and Volume: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Postmenopausal Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Whole‐body vibration (WBV) therapy has been proposed as a therapy to reduce sarcopenia and improve muscle strength. The purpose of this study was to explore whether 12 months of WBV therapy increases myotendinous density and volume of the distal tibia as measured by HR‐pQCT in postmenopausal women in a parallel group, randomized controlled trial with 1:1:1 allocation to three arms. Postmenopausal women (N = 202) with low hip BMD were randomized to 20 min daily of 0.3g 30‐Hz WBV therapy, 0.3g 90‐Hz WBV therapy using the Juvent platform (Juvent, Somerset, NJ, USA), or no WBV. The main outcome measure was myotendinous density (HU) and volume (mm3) at the distal tibia measured at baseline and 12 months with HR‐pQCT. There were no significant effects on myotendinous density or volume at the distal tibia after 12 months of daily 30‐ or 90‐Hz WBV therapy compared with no WBV therapy. Mean change (SD) in myotendinous density from baseline was 4.6 (5.7) HU in the 30‐Hz WBV group, 3.9 (6.1) HU in the 90‐Hz WBV group, and 3.9 (5.4) HU in the control group (p = 0.70). Mean change (SD) in myotendinous volume from baseline was −7 (503) mm3 in the 30‐Hz WBV group, 111 (615) mm3 in the 90‐Hz WBV group, and 35 (615) mm3 in the control group (p = 0.50). In conclusion, WBV therapy at 30‐ or 90‐Hz for 12 months had no significant effects on myotendinous density or volume at the distal tibia as measured by HR‐pQCT in postmenopausal women. © 2018 The Authors. JBMR Plus Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".