P1‐539: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COGNITIVE AND PHYSICAL FUNCTION IN OLDER ADULTS ACROSS MULTIPLE STUDIES: A POOLED ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous studies have examined the association between cognitive and physical function suggesting a connection between these domains. The consistency of these associations across a variety of disease and functional contexts is unclear. We examined the relationship between performance on cognitive tests and physical function (including gait speed, chair rise, and balance) across several diverse older adult populations recruited to participate in studies sponsored by the Wake Forest Alzheimer's Disease Research Center (ADRC) and the Older Americans Independence Center (OAIC). We examined whether the association between cognitive and physical function held across disease states and health status utilizing a pooled analysis approach. Data was collected from participants seen between March 2016-December 2017 for the first time at the ADRC (n= 111), or who participated in one of 11 different OAIC sponsored clinical trials (n= 818). Uniform clinical assessments were used across studies, including the Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), or the Digit Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) and the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). The SPPB is comprised of a 4-meter walk, timed chair rise five times, and a balance test. Multiple linear regression models were applied across the whole sample (n= 929) and for each study. Across all groups, there was a significant association between higher scores on the MMSE and better physical function (faster gait speed β= 0.02 meters/second(m/s) per point, p <0.001, chair rise time β= −0.31 seconds per point, p =0.002, balance β= 0.06 per point, p <0.001, and SPPB β= 0.18 per point, p <0.001). Higher scores on the DSST produced similar and consistently significant results across all studies (faster gait speed β= 0.01 m/s per point, p <0.001, chair rise time β= −0.08 seconds per point, p <0.001, balance β= 0.01 per point, p <0.001 and SPPB β= 0.06 per point, p <0.001). ADRC participants and older adults with various health conditions showed a consistent pattern between better cognitive function and better physical function. More research is needed to understand the complex interplay between cognition and physical function among older adults.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".