MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386817495 · doi:10.1159/000534063

Impact of 14 Days of Bed Rest in Older Adults and an Exercise Countermeasure on Body Composition, Muscle Strength, and Cardiovascular Function: Canadian Space Agency Standard Measures

2023· article· en· W4386817495 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Guy Hajj‐Boutros, Vita Sonjak, Andréa Faust, Eric T. Hedge, Carmelo Mastrandrea, Jean‐Christophe Lagacé, Philippe St‐Martin, Donya Naz Divsalar, Farshid Sadeghian, Stéphanie Chevalier, Teresa Liu‐Ambrose, Andrew P. Blaber, Isabelle J. Dionne, Simon Duchesne, Richard L. Hughson, Saija Kontulainen, Olga Theou, José A. Morais

Bibliographic record

VenueGerontology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversité LavalUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of WaterlooResearch Institute for AgingSimon Fraser UniversityUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyDeconditioningIsometric exerciseVertical jumpSarcopeniaCardiorespiratory fitnessBed restPhysical medicine and rehabilitationExercise physiologyInternal medicineJump

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Head-down bed rest (HDBR) has long been used as an analog to microgravity, and it also enables studying the changes occurring with aging. Exercise is the most effective countermeasure for the deleterious effects of inactivity. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of an exercise countermeasure in healthy older participants on attenuating musculoskeletal deconditioning, cardiovascular fitness level, and muscle strength during 14 days of HDBR as part of the standard measures of the Canadian Space Agency. METHODS: Twenty-three participants (12 males and 11 females), aged 55-65 years, were admitted for a 26-day inpatient stay at the McGill University Health Centre. After 5 days of baseline assessment tests, they underwent 14 days of continuous HDBR followed by 7 days of recovery with repeated tests. Participants were randomized to passive physiotherapy or an exercise countermeasure during the HDBR period consisting of 3 sessions per day of either high-intensity interval training (HIIT) or low-intensity cycling or strength exercises for the lower and upper body. Peak aerobic power (V̇O2peak) was determined using indirect calorimetry. Body composition was assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and several muscle group strengths were evaluated using an adjustable chair dynamometer. A vertical jump was used to assess whole-body power output, and a tilt test was used to measure cardiovascular and orthostatic challenges. Additionally, changes in various blood parameters were measured as well as the effects of exercise countermeasure on these measurements. RESULTS: There were no differences at baseline in main characteristics between the control and exercise groups. The exercise group maintained V̇O2peak levels similar to baseline, whereas it decreased in the control group following 14 days of HDBR. Body weight significantly decreased in both groups. Total and leg lean masses decreased in both groups. However, total body fat mass decreased only in the exercise group. Isometric and isokinetic knee extension muscle strength were significantly reduced in both groups. Peak velocity, flight height, and flight time were significantly reduced in both groups with HDBR. CONCLUSION: In this first Canadian HDBR study in older adults, an exercise countermeasure helped maintain aerobic fitness and lean body mass without affecting the reduction of knee extension strength. However, it was ineffective in protecting against orthostatic intolerance. These results support HIIT as a promising approach to preserve astronaut health and functioning during space missions, and to prevent deconditioning as a result of hospitalization in older adults.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGerontologySame topicSpaceflight effects on biologyFrench-language works237,207