Evaluating and Characterizing an Individually-Tailored Community Exercise Program for Older Adults With Chronic Neurological Conditions: A Mixed-Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A mixed-methods approach was used to study an individually-tailored community exercise program for people with a range of chronic neurological conditions (e.g., stroke, spinal cord injury, brain injury, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease) and abilities. The program was delivered to older adults (mean age: 62 ± 9 years) with chronic neurological conditions across a 12-week and an 8-week term. Participants attended 88% of sessions and completed 89% of prescribed exercises in those sessions. There were no adverse events. Clinically important improvements were achieved by all evaluated participants (n = 8) in at least one testing domain (grip strength, lower-extremity strength, aerobic endurance, and balance). Interviews with participants identified key program elements as support through supervision, social connection, individualized programming, and experiential learning. Findings provide insight into elements that enable a community exercise program to meet the needs of a complex and varied group. Further study will support positive long-term outcomes for people aging with neurological conditions.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".