MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3092790110 · doi:10.2196/22989

High-Intensity Interval Aerobic Resistance Training to Counteract Low Relative Appendicular Lean Soft Tissue Mass in Middle Age: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

2020· article· en· W3092790110 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lara Vlietstra, Debra L. Waters, Lynnette M. Jones, Kim Meredith‐Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Otago
KeywordsLean body massMedicineSarcopeniaPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialAerobic exerciseCardiorespiratory fitnessInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia is the age-related loss of skeletal muscle mass and function and may exist in early middle age. Previous research in this area has focused on resistance training in older individuals; however, there is a lack of intervention trials in middle-aged adults with low relative appendicular lean soft tissue mass who may be at risk for sarcopenia in older age. OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial aims to determine the effects of a high-intensity interval aerobic resistance training intervention on appendicular lean soft tissue mass in middle-aged adults with low relative appendicular lean soft tissue mass. METHODS: We will conduct a 40-week, single-blinded randomized controlled trial in 84 middle-aged adults with low appendicular lean soft tissue mass in the wider Dunedin area, New Zealand. We will randomly allocate participants to receive either a group-based, 20-week high-intensity interval aerobic resistance training intervention program or a single, 60-minute education session on current exercise recommendations. After the first 20 weeks, both groups will be given a 20-week home program. The study will assess primary and secondary outcome measures, including body composition (regional and whole-body lean soft tissue mass, fat mass, percentage body fat, measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry), blood biomarkers (cortisol, creatinine, C-reactive protein, lipid profile, hemoglobin), physical fitness (maximum oxygen consumption, blood pressure), physical activity (accelerometry), physical function (handgrip strength, sit-to-stand, gait speed, quadriceps strength), and self-reported questionnaires (health outcomes, self-efficacy, perceived enjoyment of physical activity, and multifactorial lifestyle), at baseline, 20 weeks, and 40 weeks. Physical function and self-reported questionnaires will also be measured at 10 weeks. We will assess the primary outcome measure, total body lean soft tissue mass, at baseline, 20 weeks, and 40 weeks. Analyses will be performed using intention-to-treat principles, comparing the outcomes resulting from the intervention, using linear mixed models. RESULTS: We obtained ethical approval for this study from The University of Otago Human Ethics Committee on December 10, 2018. Participant recruitment started on February 11, 2019 and was completed on May 14, 2019. Data collection started on February 25, 2019 and was completed on February 28, 2020. We expect to publish the results in January 2021. CONCLUSIONS: High-intensity interval aerobic resistance training is a time-efficient form of exercise, enabling busy middle-aged adults to meet physical activity recommendations while maximizing training results. The findings can inform the development of future prevention-focused interventions aimed at counteracting the high prevalence of sarcopenia in the aging population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001778279); https://tinyurl.com/y555z6fz. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/22989.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0090.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.008
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0110.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0720.014

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 head0.330
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicNutrition and Health in Aging→French-language works237,207→