Motoric Cognitive Risk Syndrome: Could It Be Defined Through Increased Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test Time, Rather Than Slow Walking Speed?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Slow walking speed, time to perform the Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand (FTSS) test and Motoric Cognitive Risk syndrome (MCR), which associates slow gait speed and subjective cognitive complaint, have separately been used to screen older individuals at risk of cognitive decline. The study aims to 1) compare the characteristics of older individuals with MCR defined with slow walking speed and/or increased FTSS time, and 2) examine the association of MCR and its motor components with amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment (a-MCI) and non-amnestic MCI (na-MCI). Methods. A total of 633 individuals free of dementia were selected from the "Gait and Alzheimer Interactions Tracking" study, which is a cross-sectional study. Slow gait speed and increased FTSS time were used as criterion for the definition of MCR. Participants were separated in five groups based on MCR status: MCR defined with (1) slow gait speed exclusively (MCRs), (2) increased FTSS time exclusively (MCRf), (3) slow gait speed and increased FTSS time (MCRsaf), (4) MCR irrespective of the mobility test used (MCRsof) and (5) absence of MCR. Cognitive status (i.e., a-MCI, na-MCI, cognitively healthy) was also determined. Results. The prevalence of MCRs was higher compared to the prevalence of MCRf (12.0% versus 6.2% with P≤0.001). There was a small overlap (2.4%) between individuals with MCRs and MCRf, and an important overlap between individuals with MCRs and na-MCI (up to 50%). a-MCI and na-MCI were negatively (odd ratios (OR) ≤0.17 with P≤0.019) and positively (OR≥2.41 with P≤0.019) associated with MCRs, respectively. Conclusion. Individuals with MCRf are different than those with MCRs. MCRf status is not associated with MCI status compared to MCRs. MCRs was negatively associated with a-MCI and positively association with na-MCI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".