MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086329492 · doi:10.3109/03014460.2014.934920

Age as a moderator of the secular trend for grip strength in Canada and the United States

2014· review· en· W2086329492 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Irwin Silverman

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Human Biology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrip strengthSecular variationDemographyMedicineModerationObesityBody weightPsychologyPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine whether grip strength changed on average over recent decades at each of two age levels (children and adolescents versus adults) in Canada and the US. METHODS: For each sex, weighted least squares regression analyses were performed on mean grip strength values as reported in studies conducted from the 1960s onwards. RESULTS: Grip strength did not change significantly as a function of year tested in children and adolescents, whereas it declined as a negatively accelerated function of year tested in adults. CONCLUSION: The results are contrary to what might be expected given that body weight has increased in both countries in recent decades and given that grip strength has been found to be positively correlated with body weight. It is suggested that there was a concurrent change in a factor that operated to counteract the effect of increased body weight on grip strength, a prime candidate being a decrease in levels of serum vitamin D. It is also suggested that the secular decline in adult grip strength can be explained by a factor that affects muscular function but which has a long latency period, a prime candidate here being obesity history.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.152
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Human BiologySame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207