Effect of Senior Dance (DanSE) on Fall Risk Factors in Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older people's participation in structured exercise programs to improve balance and mobility is low. Senior Dance is an alternative option, as it may provide a safe and fun way of targeting balance. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to investigate the effect of Senior Dance on balance, mobility, and cognitive function compared with a control intervention. DESIGN: The study was a randomized controlled trial. SETTING/PATIENTS: Eighty-two community-dwelling older people aged 60 years or over and cognitively intact were recruited in Brazil. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly allocated to 2 groups: Dance plus education (intervention group) and education alone (control group). The Senior Dance program consisted of 12 weeks of twice-weekly group-based dance classes. Participants in both groups attended a single 1-hour educational session on prevention of falls. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was single-leg stance with eyes closed. Secondary outcomes were timed sit-to-stand test, standing balance test, timed 4-m walk, and cognitive function tests, for example, Trail Making Test and Montreal Cognitive Assessment. RESULTS: Of the 82 participants randomized, 71 (87%) completed the 12-week follow-up. Single-leg stance with eyes closed (primary outcome) improved in the Senior Dance group (mean difference [MD] = 2.3 seconds, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1 to 3.6) compared with the control group at follow-up. Senior Dance group performed better in the standing balance tests (MD = 3.7 seconds, 95% CI = 0.6 to 6.8) and were faster in the sit-to-stand test (MD = - 3.1 seconds, 95% CI = -4.8 to -1.4) and 4-m walk test (MD = -0.6 seconds, 95% CI = -1.0 to -0.1). There were no significant between-group differences for cognitive function tests. LIMITATIONS: Participants and therapists were not blinded. CONCLUSION: Senior Dance was effective in improving balance and mobility but not cognitive function in community-dwelling older people.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".