The effects of reactive balance training on cardiorespiratory fitness and muscle strength: a pilot randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Reactive balance training (RBT) may improve multiple components of physical fitness, including aerobic capacity and muscle strength. However, there have been no studies examining its effects on these factors in people with stroke. Objectives The objectives of this pilot study were to determine the feasibility of a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial, comparing aerobic and strength training (AST) and RBT, considering sample size (primary objective), rates of accrual and withdrawal, intervention adherence, missing data, preliminary effects, and harms (secondary objectives). Methods People who were at least six months’ post-stroke and could stand independently for >30 seconds were recruited. Peak oxygen consumption was measured by cardiopulmonary exercise test. Peak isokinetic torques for knee extension and flexion were measured by dynamometer. Results Twenty-three participants (6 women) were randomized into AST and RBT groups. Four-hundred participants per group were estimated to be required for the main trial considering and peak isokinetic torque as primary outcomes. Rates of accrual and withdrawal were 2 participants for every quarter and 30%, respectively. On average, AST participants attended 29.6/36 sessions (range: 18-36) and RBT participants attended 23.5/36 sessions (range: 1-35). Data were missing for (n=2) and ABC scale (n=1) as participants declined testing. and peak knee extension torque of more-affected legs improved post-intervention in both groups. Ten adverse events related to study interventions resolved without medical attention. Conclusion Progressing to a definitive single-site trial is not feasible given the large required sample size, low accrual, and high withdrawal rates. Trial registration NCT04042961
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".