The effects of Pilates on health-related outcomes in individuals with increased risk of fracture: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review examined the effect of Pilates on health-related outcomes in individuals with increased fracture risk to inform the 2021 Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Osteoporosis and Fracture Prevention in Canada. Seven electronic databases were searched to December 2020. Studies of Pilates in men and postmenopausal women aged ≥50 years with low bone mineral density (BMD), history of fragility fracture, or moderate-high risk of fragility fracture were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies and performed risk of bias assessment. Of 7286 records and 504 full-text articles, 5 studies were included, encompassing data from 143 participants (99% female). Data were insufficient for meta-analyses. There is low-certainty evidence that Pilates improved physical functioning and health-related quality of life. The effect of Pilates on falls and BMD is uncertain. No evidence was available for the effect of Pilates on mortality, fractures, or adverse events. Overall, Pilates may improve physical functioning and quality of life. Evidence of benefits relative to harms of Pilates in people with increased fracture risk, particularly males, is limited. PROSPERO registration: CRD42019122685. Novelty: Pilates may improve physical functioning and quality of life in women with osteoporosis. Evidence of the effect of Pilates on BMD, falls, fractures, or adverse events is limited.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".