A Coordinated Multi-study Analysis of the Longitudinal Association Between Handgrip Strength and Cognitive Function in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Handgrip strength, an indicator of overall muscle strength, has been found to be associated with slower rate of cognitive decline and decreased risk for cognitive impairment and dementia. However, evaluating the replicability of associations between aging-related changes in physical and cognitive functioning is challenging due to differences in study designs and analytical models. A multiple-study coordinated analysis approach was used to generate new longitudinal results based on comparable construct-level measurements and identical statistical models and to facilitate replication and research synthesis. METHODS: We performed coordinated analysis on 9 cohort studies affiliated with the Integrative Analysis of Longitudinal Studies of Aging and Dementia (IALSA) research network. Bivariate linear mixed models were used to examine associations among individual differences in baseline level, rate of change, and occasion-specific variation across grip strength and indicators of cognitive function, including mental status, processing speed, attention and working memory, perceptual reasoning, verbal ability, and learning and memory. Results were summarized using meta-analysis. RESULTS: After adjustment for covariates, we found an overall moderate association between change in grip strength and change in each cognitive domain for both males and females: Average correlation coefficient was 0.55 (95% CI = 0.44-0.56). We also found a high level of heterogeneity in this association across studies. DISCUSSION: Meta-analytic results from nine longitudinal studies showed consistently positive associations between linear rates of change in grip strength and changes in cognitive functioning. Future work will benefit from the examination of individual patterns of change to understand the heterogeneity in rates of aging and health-related changes across physical and cognitive biomarkers.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".