Reduced muscular strength among Canadians aged 60 to 79: Canadian Health Measures Survey, 2007 to 2013.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reduced muscular strength is associated with an increased risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality, heart attack and stroke. At older ages, reduced strength is associated with impaired mobility, risk of falls, and disability. Various criteria are used to determine reduced strength. DATA AND METHODS: Data on grip strength among 3,181 respondents aged 60 to 79 from the 2007 to 2013 Canadian Health Measures Survey were used to calculate the prevalence of reduced strength based on sex-specific percentile and t-score cut-points and cut-points of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health. Logistic regression was used to identify significant associations between reduced strength and mobility, disability and self-rated health. RESULTS: Based on stricter criteria, the prevalence of reduced strength among household residents aged 60 to 79 ranged from 3% to 5%; based on less strict criteria, the prevalence ranged from 10% to 18%. Compared with people with normal strength, those with reduced strength had higher odds of impaired mobility (ranging from 3.40 to 8.33, depending on the cut-point), poor or fair self-rated health (2.19 to 4.20), and moderate-to-severe disability (2.21 to 2.60). INTERPRETATION: Estimates of the prevalence of reduced grip strength varied by cut-point. Reduced strength was significantly associated with impaired mobility, moderate-to-severe disability, and poor or fair self-rated health. Further research is required to determine if associations between reduced strength and other health outcomes vary by cut-point.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".