Physical Frailty is Associated with Longitudinal Decline in Global Cognitive Function in Non-Demented Older Adults: A Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the relationship between physical frailty and subsequent decline in global cognitive function in the non-demented elderly. DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective population-based study in a west Japanese suburban town, with two-year follow-up. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwellers aged 65 and older without placement in long-term care, and not having a history of dementia, Parkinson's disease and depression at baseline, who participated in the cohort of the Sasaguri Genkimon Study and underwent follow-up assessments two years later (N = 1,045). MEASUREMENTS: Global cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Physical frailty was identified according to the following five components: weight loss, low grip strength, exhaustion, slow gait speed and low physical activities. Linear regression models were used to examine associations between baseline frailty status and the MoCA scores at follow-up. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the risk of cognitive decline (defined as at least two points decrease of MoCA score) according to baseline frailty status. RESULTS: Seven hundred and eight non-demented older adults were included in the final analyses (mean age: 72.6 ± 5.5 years, male 40.3%); 5.8% were frail, and 40.8% were prefrail at baseline. One hundred and fifty nine (22.5%) participants experienced cognitive decline over two years. After adjustment for baseline MoCA scores and all confounders, being frail at baseline was significantly associated with a decline of 1.48 points (95% confidence interval [CI], -2.37 to -0.59) in MoCA scores, as compared with non-frailty. Frail persons were over two times more likely to experience cognitive decline (adjusted odds ratio 2.28; 95% CI, 1.02 to 5.08), compared to non-frail persons. CONCLUSION: Physical frailty is associated with longitudinal decline in global cognitive function in the non-demented older adults over a period of two years. Physically frail older community-dwellers should be closely monitored for cognitive decline that can be sensitively captured by using the MoCA.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".