QUADRICEPS STRENGTH IS ASSOCIATED WITH COGNITION IN OLDER ADULTS WITH CHRONIC STROKE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Individuals who have suffered a stroke are at risk for developing cognitive impairment and dementia. Thus, it is important to identify modifiable risk factor for cognitive decline in this population. Among older adults without a history of stroke, greater muscle strength is associated with better cognitive function. Whether this relationship also exist in older adults with a history of stroke is not known. Thus, we aimed to examine whether cognition, as measured by both the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the 13-item Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive (ADAS-Cog 13), is associated with lower extremity muscle strength in adults with chronic stroke (> 1 year post stroke). Ninety-one community-dwelling adults, aged 55 years and older, with chronic stroke were included in this analysis. Isometric strength of the quadriceps was measured bilaterally in kilograms. Two linear regression models were constructed to determine the independent association of quadriceps strength (mean kilograms of both legs) with: 1) MoCA; and 2) ADAS-Cog 13, after controlling for age, sex, and mood. Mean quadriceps strength was independently associated with both MoCA and ADAS-Cog scores, after accounting for age, sex, and mood. Specifically, quadriceps strength explained an additional 5.6% of the variable in MoCA scores; total variance explained by the model was 12.0%. For ADAS-Cog 13, quadriceps strength explained an additional 5.4% of the variance; total variance explained by the model was 16.5%. Our current cross-sectional results suggest that the maintenance of muscle strength may be important for cognitive health in older adults who have suffered a stroke.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".