Stand if you can- A parallel, superiority cluster randomized controlled trial to improve gait speed for long term care residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To examine the effects of a standing intervention on gait speed for older adults living in long term care (LTC) residences. Design: A parallel superiority cluster randomized controlled trial. Setting and participants: LTC residences. A total of 95 LTC residents (n = 47 control; n = 48 intervention) participated in the study. Methods: LTC residences and therefore the residents from the homes were randomized to either the intervention group (standing up to 100 minutes/week) for 22 weeks or the control group (socializing with staff with no encouragement to stand for up to 100 minutes/week) for 22 weeks. The primary outcome is gait speed measured by the 10-meter walking speed test. Results: A total of 95 participants (n= 47 in the control group and n=48 in the intervention group) age 86 ± 8 years completed the trial, averaging 41.9 ± 30.3 min of standing per week in the intervention group and 48.4 ± 22.8 min of time matched activity in the control group. There was no significant difference between groups in changes in gait speed (β=-0.034, 95 % C.I. (-0.097 0.028)). Conclusions and implications: This 22-week standing intervention did not improve gait speed in older adults living in LTC residences.Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov - NCT03796039.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".