Superior Effects of Modified Chen-Style Tai Chi versus 24-Style Tai Chi on Cognitive Function, Fitness, and Balance Performance in Adults over 55
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive decline and balance impairment are prevalent in the aging population. Previous studies investigated the beneficial effects of 24-style Tai Chi (TC-24) on either cognitive function or balance performance of older adults. It still remains largely unknown whether modified Chen-style TC (MTC) that includes 18 complex movements is more beneficial for these age-related health outcomes, as compared to TC-24. OBJECTIVE: We investigated if MTC would show greater effects than TC-24 on global cognitive function and balance-related outcomes among older adults. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial where 80 eligible adults aged over 55 were allocated into two different styles of Tai Chi (TC) arms (sixty-minute session × three times per week, 12 weeks). Outcome assessments were performed at three time periods (baseline, Week 6, and Week 12) and included the Chinese Version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) for overall cognitive function, One-leg Standing Test (LST) for static balance, Timed Up and Go Test (TUGT) for dynamic balance, chair Stand Test (CST) for leg power, and the six-meter Walk Test (6MWT) for aerobic exercise capacity. RESULTS: < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both forms of TC were effective in enhancing global cognitive function, balance, and fitness. Furthermore, MTC was more effective than TC-24 in enhancing these health-related parameters in an aging population.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".