Effects of group-based virtual reality training on activities of daily living and functional outcomes in older adults: a randomised control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtual reality training (VRT), a fun, inexpensive and accessible technology, has the potential to improve activities of daily living (ADL) and functional status in older adults. The potential impact of VRT can be increased through group-based training. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of group- based VRT on ADL and functional outcomes in older adults over 65 years of age. Forty-three older adults included in the study were randomized into three groups (group- based VRT, individual VRT and control group). VRT was performed with Xbox 360 Kinect twice a week for 8 weeks. Each session lasted 45 min. Physical activity level, satisfaction level with physical activity, mood, mobility and balance performance, functional exercise capacity and ADL were evaluated. 36 people completed the study. A significant group × time interaction was found in Timed Up and Go test (TUG) (F [2, 57] = 8.60; η2= 0.004, P= <.001) and in Single Leg Stance Test (SLST)) (F [2, 57] = 5.69; η2= 8.509 × 10−4, P= <.007). After 8 weeks group- based VRT showed better scores in overall TUG (p < .001) and SLST (p= .015), whereas individual VRT and control group did not exhibit significant changes. Our results suggested that 8 weeks group- based VRT could improve mobility and balance performance 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".