The Effect of Physical Factors on Grip Strength and Dexterity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the relationship between physical factors (age, sex, hand size and dominance, height and weight) and both grip strength and dexterity. Ninety healthy subjects without current upper extremity pathology or injuries were recruited. Anthropometric measures of the hand were taken using the NK Micrometer, grip strength using the NK Digit-Grip, and dexterity (small, medium and large subsets) was tested using the NK Dexterity Board. Univariate correlations between grip strength and subject height, hand span, width and length were significant (r=0.38-0.82). Sex (p 0.001) and hand dominance (p 0.05) were also significant predictors of grip strength. Increased age resulted in increased time in all dexterity subtests (r=0.30-0.51). Multivariate stepwise regression revealed that sex explained the majority of variance in grip strength scores (r2=0.46-0.76), with additional contribution of age and height. Dexterity was less predictable, but most related to age (r2=0.13-0.26), with sex and dominance providing some additional information. While it is relatively easy to establish that a patient has an impaired grip, caution should be taken when ascribing that label to an individual patient's performance on a dexterity test.
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".