Effect of Ankle Weights as a Frailty Prevention Strategy in the Community-Dwelling Elderly: A Preliminary Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many healthy older adults have been less willing to engage in group exercise for fear of contracting this illness. Therefore, there is a need for an effective home-based exercise program to prevent frailty in the elderly. In this study, we assessed the effectiveness of ankle weights as a frailty prevention device for older adults. The study participants were aged 50−90 years and were screened for falls using the Motor Fitness Scale. Participants were divided into two age groups (≤70 and >70 years) for analysis. Older community-dwelling adults were invited to use ankle weights for 3 months. Seventy-four people responded to the invitation. Physical and cognitive status and performance (body composition, grip strength, standing on one leg with eyes open, the 30 s chair stand test (CS-30), Timed Up and Go test, walking speed, body sway, Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment) were assessed before and after 3 months of intervention. CS-30 performance improved during the study. CS-30 reflects lower limb/trunk muscle strength and can be used to indicate the risk of falls. Wearing ankle weights can be recommended for strengthening the muscles of the lower limb and trunk in the elderly.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".