Comparison between six-week exergaming, conventional balance and no exercise training program on older adults’ balance and gait speed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We evaluated differences between a six-week exergame-training and a conventional balance training program on the balance and gait speed of older adults’ (>65 years). Forty-two healthy participants were recruited from independent living and community centers and randomized to one of three groups: exergaming balance training (EBT), conventional balance training (CBT), or control (no training). The participants completed two balance measurements (Fullerton Advanced Balance Scale (FAB) and center of pressure (COP) excursion), and gait speed at pre, post-intervention, and after a three-week follow-up. Both EBT and CBT groups improved their scores on the FAB, COP displacement, and gait speed post-intervention (p<0.05) and these changes were maintained and did not return to pre-training values after three weeks of detraining. The control group scores for FAB and gait velocity values declined (p<0.001) but not COP excursions during the study. This six-week exergame training program improved balance control and gait speed in community-dwelling seniors in a similar fashion to conventional training. Participants’ physical abilities scores improved and were maintained following three weeks of detraining. Exergame-based training therefore may be considered as an intervention that can address balance control and gait speed in older adults. As well improved scores can be maintained with transient or sporadic activity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".