To Compare the Effect of Modified Pilates and Core Stabilization Exercise on Balance, Core Muscle Endurance and Lumbopelvic Flexibility in Elderly Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The abidance of physical independence is diminished by the aging process, so it is important to adopt techniques that can assist in preserving the functional autonomy and quality of life of elderly. Therefore this study aims to compare the effect of two exercise protocols. Objective: To compare the effect of modified pilates and core stabilization exercise on balance, core muscle endurance and lumbopelvic flexibility in elderly women. Study Design: Experimental design Source of Data Collection: DAV institute of physiotherapy, Yamunanagar. Methodology: 30 Subjects were included in study on the basis of inclusion criteria were randomly allocated into 2 groups: Group A performed Modified Pilates exercise and Group B performed Core Stabilization Exercise . Treatment was given for 4 weeks. Balance, Core Muscle Endurance and Lumbopelvic Flexibility were measured as Outcome measure on 1st , 14th and 28th day using Mini- BEST TEST, McGill’s core endurance tests ,sit and reach test respectively. Result: Statistically significant improvement (p<0.05) noticed in both groups for all the outcomes. However, non-significant difference is found between the groups. Conclusion: The study provides evidence that both the interventions are effective and can be applied in clinical setup to improve balance, core muscle endurance and lumbopelvic flexibility in elderly women. Key words: Modified Pilates, core stabilization exercises, Balance, lumbopelvic flexibility.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".