Could Questions on Activities of Daily Living Estimate Grip Strength of Older Adults Living Independently in the Community?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to identify questions that could estimate grip strength. Twenty-six questions about the degree of perceived difficulty performing manual tasks as well as two questions concerning self-rated grip strength were developed and completed by 123 community-dwelling older adults, followed by grip strength measurements using a Martin vigorimeter. Multiple regression analyses with all of the participants revealed that the question about the difficulty of opening a jar (question 4) was most associated with grip strength. When analyses were done by gender, the same question showed the best correlation for women, whereas the one for men was self-rated grip strength compared with people the same age (question 28). For the women, age and question 4 together explained 54% of the variance in their grip strength and for the men, age and question 28 explained 46%. Further studies are needed to identify other information that could help to better estimate grip strength for use in epidemiological surveys.
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.
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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it