The necessity of strength training for the older patient.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muscle strength is considered to be the most physiologically limiting factor of the older patient and a determinant of their functional status. The physiological benefits of exercise in general are well documented. Over the past five years research has shown that exercise, particularly strength training, is not only important, but necessary for successful aging. The literature indicates that there are many deleterious changes in the muscloskeletal system during the normal process of aging. Investigations into the area of functional independence has shown strength training can mitigate or even reverse a spiraling decline in activities of daily living (ADLs), even among the frail elderly. Functional gains observed include improvements in gait, gait speed, balance, mobility tasks and a decrease in the risk of falling. Traditional geriatric studies have emphasized the “Five I’s” that challenge the older patient (intellectual impairment, incontinence, immobility, instability and iatrogenic drug reactions). Strength training is a benefit to all five of the “Five I’s”. With the aging of the Canadian population, it is expected that persons over the age of 65 will comprise at least 30% of a chiropractor’s patient portfolio. It therefore seems appropriate to inform the chiropractic profession of the importance as well as the necessity of strength training for the older patient.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".