"STAND IF YOU CAN": A 22-week, single-blind, randomized controlled trial to evaluate gait speed in residents in a standing intervention in long term care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Many long-term care residents do not have the physical capacity to participate in structured exercise programs. Purpose: To examine the effects of a standing intervention on gait speed in a long-term care setting. Methods: Long-term care residents (70% female, 85 ± 7 years) were randomized 1:1 to a control or standing intervention using a cluster of four residences. Participants in the intervention attended 20-minute sessions comprising social interaction with assisted standing, five days per week for 22 weeks- for a goal of 100 minutes weekly. Participants in the control group received equal time in the same social interaction while sitting. The primary outcome was gait speed measured with the 10-metre walking test. ANCOVA adjusted for baseline gait speed was used to assess the impact of the intervention adjusted for baseline walking speed. Results: 96 participants completed the intervention with an average of 41.9 ± 30.3 minutes/week in the intervention group and 48.4 ± 22.8 minutes/week in the control group. ANCOVA yielded no significant between-group effect for gait speed when controlling for baseline gait speed in neither the intervention group (0.38 ± 0.14 to 0.37 ± 0.16 m/sec) nor the control group (0.44 ± 0.14 to 0.47 ± 0.22 m/sec). However, 15% of the intervention group exceeded the 0.1m/sec threshold for minimal important change. Conclusions: Standing for 48 minutes extra weekly did not increase gait speed in long-term care residents. Future research should examine how to increase attendance or the effects of standing on different outcomes that are relevant for residents in long-term care settings. Funding: Canadian Frailty Network.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".