Total Insulinlike Growth Factor 1 and Insulinlike Growth Factor Binding Protein Levels, Functional Status, and Mortality in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between total insulinlike growth factor (IGF)-1, IGF binding protein-1 (IGFBP-1), and IGFBP-3 levels and functioning and mortality in older adults. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: One thousand one hundred twenty-two individuals aged 65 and older without prior cardiovascular disease events participating in the Cardiovascular Health Study. MEASUREMENTS: Baseline fasting plasma levels of IGF-1, IGFBP-1, and IGFBP-3 (defined as tertiles, T1-T3) were examined in relationship to handgrip strength, time to walk 15 feet, development of new difficulties with activities of daily living (ADLs), and mortality. RESULTS: Higher IGFBP-1 predicted worse handgrip strength (P-trend(T1-T3)<.01) and slower walking speed (P-trend(T1-T3)=.03), lower IGF-1 had a borderline significant association with worse handgrip strength (P-trend(T1-T3)=.06), and better grip strength was observed in the middle IGFBP-3 tertile than in the low or high tertiles (P=.03). Adjusted for age, sex, and race, high IGFBP-1 predicted greater mortality (P-trend(T1-T3)<.001, hazard ratio (HR)(T3vsT1)=1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.15-1.90); this association was borderline significant after additional confounder adjustment (P-trend(T1-T3)=.05, HR(T3vsT1)=1.35, 95% CI=0.98-1.87). High IGFBP-1 was associated with greater risk of incident ADL difficulties after adjustment for age, sex, race, and other confounders (P-trend(T1-T3)=.04, HR(T3vsT1)=1.40, CI=1.01-1.94). Neither IGF-1 nor IGFBP-3 level predicted mortality or incident ADL difficulties. CONCLUSION: In adults aged 65 and older, high IGFBP-1 levels were associated with greater risk of mortality and poorer functional ability, whereas IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 had little association with these outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".