The effect on lower limbs of wearing ankle weights in people under/over 70 years old: single comparison after intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Since the emergence of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), safety management in gymnastics classrooms has been difficult. As a result, healthy older adults are more likely to voluntarily refrain from attending because of fear of contracting COVID-19, and thus engage in less exercise. In this context, it is important to develop methods for self-prevention of frailty that can be conducted safely and easily at home. We examined the effectiveness of providing ankle weights to older adults as a frailty prevention device. Methods All participants were 50–90 years old and were screened for falls using the Motor Fitness Scale (MFS). Participants were divided into two groups (≤ 70 and ≥ 71 years old) and analyzed. We rented ankle weights for 3 months to older adults in the community and evaluated changes in physical and motor function before and after wearing them. A total of 75 people who responded to the call for participants used ankle weights for 3 months, and underwent various measures of physical condition, cognitive condition, and performance (body composition, grip strength, standing on one leg with eyes open, 30-second chair stand test [CS-30], timed up-and-go test [TUG], walking speed, body sway measurement, and the Japanese version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MOCA-J]) before and 3 months after wearing ankle weights. Results CS-30 performance improved in both younger and older participants. Conclusions CS-30 reflects lower limb/trunk muscle strength and can be used as an index of fall risk. Our results suggest that wearing ankle weights can be recommended as a fall-prevention measure. Trial registration: University hospital Medical Information Network ID 000038073) and registration date at April 14th 2020
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".