Pilot feasibility study of a home‐based fall prevention exercise program (<i>StandingTall</i>) delivered through a tablet computer (iPad) in older people with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and safety of StandingTall-an individually tailored, progressive exercise program delivered through tablet computers-in community-dwelling older people with dementia. METHODS: Fifteen community-dwelling older people with dementia (mean age = 83 ± 8 years; Montreal Cognitive Assessment 16 ± 5) received StandingTall for 12 weeks with caregiver assistance. Feasibility and safety were assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS; scores = 0-100; a priori target >65), Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES-8; scores = 8-56), adherence (exercise minutes) and adverse events. RESULTS: Mean SUS scores were 68 ± 21/69 ± 15 (participants/caregivers). The mean PACES-8 score was 44 ± 8. In week 2, week 7 and week 12, mean (bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CI) exercise minutes were 37 (25-51), 49 (30-69) and 65 (28-104), respectively. In week 12, five participants exercised >115 minutes. One participant fell while exercising, without sustained injury. CONCLUSIONS: StandingTall had acceptable usability, scored well on enjoyment and was feasible for participants. These results provide support for further evaluation of StandingTall in a randomised controlled trial with falls as the primary outcome.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".