Home physical exercise improves functional mobility and quality of life in the elderly: A CONSORT‐prospective, randomised controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To test the hypothesis of a semi-supervised home physical exercise programme that is likely to improve the functional mobility and quality of life (QOL) of elderly in the community. METHODS: This trial included elderly adults (88% female) aged 60 years or older and who were sedentary and without cognitive decline. The participants were randomly assigned to an intervention group (IG, home physical exercise and sleep hygiene) and a control group (CG, sleep hygiene). The International Questionnaire on Physical Activity, mental state mini-exam, World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument-Older Adults Module (WHOQOL-OLD) and the Timed Up and Go (TUG) tests were conducted before and after the 12-week intervention period. RESULTS: The study was concluded with 125 elderly participants. Anthropometric data were indicative of pre-obesity, with a mean body mass index of 27.3 ± 4, a low-income socio-economic profile (78% ≤ 2 SM) and low schooling rates (76% ≤ 3 years of study). Most of the elderly (87%) were considered physically active with IPAQ > 150 min/week. The group of elderly people who performed the home physical exercise programme showed a significant improvement in functional mobility according to the time of execution of the TUG test before (9.1 ± 2) and after (7.1 ± 1) with an average reduction of 2 ± 1 s (P < .01). The difference in the QOL of the elderly who participated in the exercise protocol was also observed, verified through the WHOQOL-OLD global score, which presented an initial score of 85 ± 10, changing to 90.4 ± 9 after the intervention. CONCLUSION: Semi-supervised physical home exercise is safe and effective in improving the functional mobility and QOL of sedentary elderly people in the community.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".