Clinical Relevance of Different Muscle Strength Indexes and Functional Impairment in Women Aged 75 Years and Older
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Muscle mass index has long been used as a useful index to evaluate the risks of developing functional impairments. However, there is evidence that other indexes (particularly muscle strength-based indexes) may be more relevant. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare the association between different indexes of muscle mass or strength with self-reported and measured functional performance to determine which index would be clinically relevant to detect individuals at risk of functional impairments. METHODS: Data are from 1,462 women aged 75 years and older recruited in the Toulouse EPIDémiologie de l'OStéoporose cohort. Body composition (assessed by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry), handgrip, and knee extension strength were assessed. Physical function was measured using the chair stand test as well as the usual and fast gait speed tests. Participants were also asked if they experienced any difficulty at performing functional tasks. RESULTS: Results showed that knee extension strength relative to body weight was the strongest correlate of physical function measures (.30 < r < .40). Women in the lowest quartile of knee extension strength relative to body weight were 5.9-, 24.7-, 12.1-, and 20.9-fold, respectively, more likely to present impairments at self-reported activities, chair stand test, and usual and fast gait speed compared with women in the highest quartile, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Knee extension strength relative to body weight appears to be well associated with self-reported difficulties and functional impairments. A threshold between 2.78 and 2.86 (knee extension strength [kPa]/body weight [kg]), determined using receiver operating characteristics curves analysis, may be a potential cut point to discriminate women presenting higher functional impairments.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".