Description and Functional Benefits of Meeting Frequency, Intensity, and Time of Resistance and Cardiovascular Exercises: A Study of Older Adults in a Community-Based, Slow-Stream Rehabilitation, Hospital-to-Home Transition Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This prospective cohort study described cardiovascular and resistance exercises completed by older adults in a community-based, slow-stream rehabilitation, hospital-to-home transition program; compared exercises completed to the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) exercise guidelines; and, assessed differences in Late Life Function and Disability Index (LLFDI)-Function Component (FC) between older adults who met and did not meet the ACSM guidelines. Descriptive statistics and Factorial ANCOVA were conducted. For cardiovascular exercise 59.3% of participants met frequency, 73.4% met intensity, and 35.9% met time. For resistance exercise, 67.2% of participants met frequency, 42.2% met intensity, and 76.6% number of repetitions. Participants who met both frequency and time for cardiovascular exercise had higher LLFDI-FC scores, as did those who met intensity and/or number of repetitions for resistance exercise. The findings provide support that older adults engaged in a slow-stream rehabilitation program can meet the ACSM exercise guidelines for community-dwelling older adults, and that meeting the guidelines improves function.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".