Effect of Sit-to-Stand Exercises Combined With Protein-Rich Oral Supplementation in Older Persons: The Older Person's Exercise and Nutrition Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Nursing home (NH) residents are often undernourished and physically inactive, which contributes to sarcopenia and frailty. The Older Person's Exercise and Nutrition Study aimed to investigate the effects of sit-to-stand exercises (STS) integrated into daily care, combined with a protein-rich oral nutritional supplement (ONS), on physical function, nutritional status, body composition, health-related quality of life, and resource use. DESIGN: Residents in 8 NHs were randomized by NH units into an intervention group (IG) or a control group (CG) (n = 60/group). The IG was a combination of STS (4 times/day) and ONS (2 bottles/day providing 600 kcal and 36 g protein) for 12 weeks. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The participants resided in NH units (dementia and somatic care), were ≥75 years of age, and able to rise from a seated position. METHODS: The 30-second Chair Stand Test was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were balance, walking speed, dependence in activities of daily living, nutritional status and body composition, health-related quality of life, and resource use. RESULTS: Altogether, 102 residents (age 86 ± 5 years, 62% female) completed the study. No improvement in the physical function assessments was observed in the IG, whereas body weight increased significantly (2.05 ± 3.5 kg, P = .013) vs the CG. Twenty-one (of 52) participants with high adherence to the intervention (ie, at least 40% compliance to the combined intervention) increased their fat free mass (2.12 kg (0.13, 4.26 interquartile range), P = .007 vs CG). Logistic regression analyses indicated that the odds ratio for maintained/improved 30-second Chair Stand Test was 3.5 (confidence interval 1.1, 10.9, P = .034) among the participants with high adherence compared with the CG. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Twelve-week intervention of daily STS combined with ONS in NH residents did not improve physical function, but increased body weight. Subgroup analyses indicated that high adherence to the combined intervention was associated with maintained or improved physical function and a gain of fat free mass.
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) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".