The impact of an exercise intervention on frailty levels in hospitalised older adults: secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: physical activity reduces frailty in community-dwelling older adults. How exercise influences frailty in hospitalised older adults requires additional investigation. OBJECTIVES: (i) to examine the impact of an exercise intervention on frailty in older adults admitted to an acute care ward, and (ii) to determine the impact of baseline frailty on the effectiveness of this intervention. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: this is a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled clinical trial that tested an intensive exercise intervention in ≥75-year-old adults admitted to an acute care ward. METHODS: the intervention included two daily sessions of moderate-intensity exercises (control received usual care). A 63-item Frailty Index (FI) was constructed, and three groups were formed: <0.2, 0.2-0.29 and ≥0.3. Other outcomes included Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and Barthel Index (BI). RESULTS: a total of 323 individuals were included. The mean age was 87.1 years (± 4.8 standard deviation [SD]) and 56.3% were females. The intervention group improved FI from 0.26 (± 0.10 SD) to 0.20 (± 0.10 SD), whereas the control group FI worsened from 0.25 (± 0.1 SD) to 0.27 (± 0.10 SD). After stratifying by baseline FI, SPPB and depression improved in the intervention group across all levels of frailty; FI, BI and quality of life only improved in individuals with a baseline FI ≥ 0.2. CONCLUSIONS: frailty improves with an intensive individualised exercise intervention, especially in those with high baseline levels of frailty. In addition, frailty is a useful outcome when examining the impact of an intervention of hospitalised older adults.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".