Handgrip Strength, but Not 5‐Meter Walk, Adds Value to a Clinical Nutrition Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Decreased physical functioning is associated with malnutrition and common in acute care patients; determining loss of function is often considered part of a comprehensive nutrition assessment. Handgrip strength (HGS) and 5-meter timed walk (5m) are functional measures used in a variety of settings. This analysis sought to determine which functional measure could be added to a hospital nutrition assessment, based on its feasibility and capacity to discriminate patient subgroups. METHODS: Eligible medical patients (no delirium/dementia, admitted from community; n = 1250), recruited from 5 hospitals that participated in a previous multisite action research study, provided data on demographics, HGS, 5m, nutrition status, perceived disability, and other characteristics. RESULTS: Significantly more patients (z = 17.39, P < .00001) were able to complete HGS than 5m (92% versus 43%, respectively). Median HGS was 28.0 kg for men and 14.7 kg for women. Of patients who completed the 5m, mean completion time was 8.98 seconds (median, 6.79 seconds, SD = 6.59). 5m and HGS scores were significantly worse with patient-perceived disability (z = -9.56, t = 10.69, respectively; P < .0001; 95% confidence interval [CI], [7.33, 10.63]; [1.76, 3.18]). HGS was associated with nutrition status (t = 4.13, P < .001; 95% CI [2.02, 5.67]), although it showed poor validity as a single nutrition indicator. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that HGS is a more useful functional measure than 5m when added to a hospital nutrition assessment. Determination of HGS cutpoints to identify low strength in acute care patients will promote its use.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".