MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2532635866

Grip strength reference values for Canadians aged 6 to 79: Canadian Health Measures Survey, 2007 to 2013.

2016· article· en· W2532635866 on OpenAlexaffabout
Suzy L Wong

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrip strengthPercentileReference valuesMedicineHand strengthNormativePhysical therapyDemographyPsychologyStatisticsMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Grip strength is a measure of overall muscular strength and has been associated with disability, morbidity and mortality. Normative data are used to interpret an individual's grip strength measurements, but Canadian reference values are not available for a wide age range. DATA AND METHODS: The data pertain to 11,108 respondents aged 6 to 79 to the 2007-to-2013 Canadian Health Measures Survey, whose right-hand and left-hand grip strength were measured with a handgrip dynamometer. Quantile regression was used to develop reference equations for males and females for maximum, right-hand and left-hand grip strength for selected percentiles as a function of age, height and weight. RESULTS: Reference values for grip strength increased through childhood and adolescence, peaked around age 40, and then declined. Reference values were higher for males than for females; differences between the sexes were smaller during childhood than in adolescence and adulthood. Differences between reference values for maximum, right-hand and left-hand grip strength varied by age and sex. INTERPRETATION: Based on a large, healthy, nationally representative sample, reference equations were developed for grip strength of Canadians from childhood to older adulthood. These equations can be used to determine the reference values that correspond to an individual of a given age, sex, height and weight.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations96
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207