MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024367043

Exploring the effects of a 12-week exercise intervention on body image in older adults

2019· article· en· W3024367043 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Madanat, Kimberley L. Gammage, Nota Klentrou, Allan L. Adkin, Larkin Lamarche

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport (SCAPPS refereed abstracts repository) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyQuality of life (healthcare)MedicinePopulationGerontologyFlexibility (engineering)Depression (economics)Physical therapyIntervention (counseling)PsychologyPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By 2030, 1 in 4 Canadians will be a senior. This aging population experiences several physical and psychological changes that can negatively impact health and lead to strain on the health care system. Physical activity has been associated with many physical and psychological benefits, such as decreased risk of chronic disease, improved cognitive functioning, ability to perform activities of daily living, higher quality of life, and decreased depression. One benefit that remains understudied in older adults is body image. Exercise can potentially alleviate the negative effects of aging on body image, however, older adults' participation rates in physical activity remain low. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a 12-week general physical activity program on body image in men and women 55 years and older. Participants (81 men and 217 women) were randomly assigned to an exercise group (60 minutes of supervised cardiovascular, strength, balance, and flexibility training three times per week) or a wait-list control. Measures of evaluation and investment in appearance, health, and illness as well as anxiety about the body were completed at baseline and 12 weeks later. Repeated measures analyses, controlling for gender, were conducted. The results showed no significant group (exercise, control) x time (pre, post) interaction, indicating no improvements on any of the outcomes following exercise (all ps > .05). Overall, the sample was healthy and active prior to participation; future research should investigate changes in a less active sample.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport (SCAPPS refereed abstracts repository)Same topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207