Impact of Tai Chi and Aerobic Exercise on Cognitive Function, Balance, Cardiovascular Fitness, and Quality of Life in Older Adults: Randomized Control Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Tai chi, an ancient Chinese martial art, was originally developed for combat and self-defense. Over time, it has evolved into both a sport and a form of exercise. This gentle, low-impact exercise involves performing a series of deliberate, flowing motions while focusing on deep, slow breaths. This study investigates the effects of chen tai chi and aerobic exercises on cognition, balance, cardiopulmonary fitness, and quality of life in older adults. Methodology This study employed a single-blinded randomized control trial design, enrolling 60 participants aged between 60 and 75 years. Participants were divided into three groups: Group A (aerobics), Group B (chen tai chi), and Group C (control). Exercise sessions were held four days per week over a period of four weeks. Evaluations included the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for cognition, a one-leg stand test for static balance, a Timed Up and Go Test for dynamic balance, a six-minute walk test for cardiopulmonary fitness, and a health-related quality-of-life scale. Assessments were conducted at baseline, immediately after the intervention, and at follow-up was taken after eight weeks. Results Post-intervention, improvements were observed in cognition and static balance across all groups. Within-group analysis revealed that the aerobics group experienced statistically significant enhancements in cognition (p = 0.0001) and static balance (p = 0.01). Although no statistically significant differences were found between groups in terms of dynamic balance, cardiopulmonary fitness, and quality of life, the within-group analysis showed significant improvements in the aerobics group in dynamic balance (p = 0.0009), cardiopulmonary fitness (p = 0.03), and quality of life (p = 0.0001). Conclusion Compared to chen tai chi and no intervention, the study concludes that aerobic exercise has a more pronounced effect on improving cognition, balance, cardiopulmonary fitness, and quality of life in older adults. Aerobic exercise is recommended as an effective method to prevent frailty and promote independence among 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".