Association Between Handgrip Muscle Strength and Cardiometabolic z-Score in Children 6 to 19 Years of Age: Results from the Canadian Health Measures Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: It is unclear if muscle strength, another index of fitness, which confers the protection from cardiometabolic risk in adults, is associated with similar protection in children and youth. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between handgrip strength and cardiometabolic health in a large Canadian sample of children and youth. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian sample of children and youth aged 6 to 19 years (n = 1376) studied in the Canadian Health Measures Survey (cycles 1 and 2) between 2007 and 2011. The primary exposure variable, handgrip strength, was measured using a handgrip dynamometer. The primary outcome measure was a composite measure of cardiometabolic risk calculated as the sum of z-scores of the following variables: triglycerides, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic and diastolic blood pressures, and hemoglobin A1c. All of the analyses were adjusted for confounders. Results: The sample was on average 12.8 ± 3.5 years and displayed a body mass index (BMI) z-score of 0.5 ± 1.2. In unadjusted analyses, handgrip strength was negatively associated with cardiometabolic z-score (estimate = −0.013; P < 0.001). When results were adjusted for age, BMI z-score, and cardiorespiratory fitness, the association was no longer significant; however, an interaction between handgrip strength, sex, and cardiometabolic z-score was observed (estimate = −0.042; P < 0.001). When analyses were stratified by sex, handgrip strength was negatively associated with cardiometabolic z-score (estimate = −0.038; P < 0.001) in girls, but not in boys (estimate = 0.008; P = 0.150). Conclusion: In a large sample of Canadian children and adolescents, handgrip strength was associated with cardiometabolic health in girls, but not in boys.
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 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".