Exercise Using Isokinetic Strength Training Equipment and Physical Function Improvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to explore the relationship between isokinetic strength training and the enhancement of physical function in older adults.It also evaluates the effectiveness of isokinetic strength training equipment.Method: This study randomly divided twenty healthy adults into two groups.The experimental group engaged in isokinetic strength training for 30 minutes, three times a week, over a four-week period.In contrast, the control group did not participate in any exercise regimen.We assessed several outcome measures including physical functions (sit-to-stand test, flexibility, Timed Up and Go test), grip strength, balance, thigh circumference, the Korean version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and the Korean version of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC).Additionally, the experimental group's self-perceived improvement in lower limb condition was evaluated using the Global Rating of Change (GROC) scale.Results: The experimental group showed significant improvements compared to the control group in various aspects: reduced sit-to-stand test duration (7.00±2.05seconds), increased flexibility (4.69±3.90cm), improved grip strength (1.54±1.74kg), increased thigh circumference (left: 1.29±1.19cm, right: 1.19±1.27cm), enhanced Timed Up and Go test performance (-1.47±0.86seconds), better balance (eyes open stance: -8.08±4.03cm, eyes closed stance: -0.27±0.13cm/s), and a decrease in depression severity (-0.15±1.51points).Furthermore, significant increases were observed in the experimental group's maximal isokinetic strength at 90°/s for both flexion (19.62±7.03Nm) and extension (19.60±14.65 Nm) over the study period. Conclusion:The findings suggest that isokinetic strength training equipment can significantly enhance physical functions in seniors when incorporated into an exercise regimen.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".