Effects of an unsupervised Nordic walking intervention on cognitive and physical function among older women engaging in volunteer activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nordic walking (NW) has been reported as a safe and effective exercise mode. However, the effects of NW on cognitive function are unknown. This study examined the effects of an unsupervised NW intervention on cognitive and physical function among older women engaging in volunteering. METHODS: Forty-seven women aged ≥70 years were enrolled and assigned into three groups (NW (n = 16); walking (n = 19); control group (n = 12)) based on residential areas. Participants in NW and walking groups received a pedometer and recorded daily step counts. The NW group received poles and 2 h of NW instruction. Participants were encouraged to perform the exercise individually more than once a week during the 3-month intervention. As baseline and follow-up assessments, cognitive function (Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA-J] and Trail Making Test), physical function (handgrip strength, walking speed, balance ability, the Timed Up and Go test, and functional capacity), and objective physical activity were evaluated. RESULTS: In the NW group, physical activity, maximal walking speed, and MoCA-J scores were improved during the intervention period. In the walking group, physical activity was increased after the intervention. Analysis of covariance showed that maximal walking speed among the NW group significantly improved compared with the walking group. Sub-group analysis of participants who exercised more than once a week showed that handgrip strength, gait speed, and MoCA-J scores were significantly improved in the NW compared with the walking group. CONCLUSION: NW intervention improved cognitive and physical function compared with simple walking among older women.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".