Diverse Exercises Similarly Reduce Older Adults’ Mobility Limitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE: Little is known about the comparative effectiveness of exercise programs, especially when delivered at a high intensity, in mobility-limited older adults. We compared the effects of 25 sessions of high-intensity agility exergaming (EXE) and stationary cycling (CYC) at the same cardiovascular load on measured and perceived mobility limitations, balance, and health-related quality of life in mobility-limited older adults. METHODS: Randomized to EXE (n = 28) and CYC (n = 27), mobility-impaired older adults (age 70 yr) exercised five times per week for 5 wk at 80% of age-predicted maximal heart rate. Waitlisted controls did not exercise (n = 28). RESULTS: Groups did not differ at baseline in any outcomes (P > 0.05). The primary outcomes (The Short Form-36-Health Survey: EXE, 6.9%; effect size, 2.2; CYC, 5.5%, 1.94; Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index: EXE, -27.2%, -3.83; CYC, -17.2, -2.90) improved similarly (P > 0.05). Secondary outcomes, including body mass (-3.7%), depression (-18%), and walking capacity (13.5%) also improved (P < 0.05) similarly after the two interventions. Activities of daily living, Berg Balance Score, BestTest scores, and Dynamic Gait Index improved more (P < 0.05) after EXE than CYC. Center of pressure of standing sway path improved in one of six tests only after EXE (P < 0.05). Postexercise cardiovascular response improved in EXE (P = 0.019). CON did not change in any outcomes (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: When matched for cardiovascular and perceived effort, two diverse high-intensity exercise programs improved health-related quality of life, perceived mobility limitation, and walking capacity similarly and balance outcomes more in mobility-limited older adults, expanding these older adults' evidence-based exercise options to reduce mobility limitations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".