46 The Relationship between Cognitive Function and Physical Performance among Older Adults Attending a Falls and Syncope Service in Kuala Lumpur
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Recent studies identified a relationship between gait difficulties and risk of developing dementia, a condition now termed motoric cognitive risk. We interrogated a clinical dataset to determine the relationship between cognitive assessment scores and physical performance scores to identify the strength of association between these two types of measures. Methods Consecutive patients referred to the falls and syncope service and the University of Malaya Medical Centre were recruited. The cognitive function of consenting individuals was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Visual Cognitive Assessment Tool (VCAT). Physical performance was assessed using hand grip strength (HGS), timed-up-and-go (TUG) and functional reach (FR). Results One hundred and forty-seven individuals, mean age (standard deviation,SD)=76.1 (7.8) years, 85 (58%) women were included. The mean (SD) for right and left HGS, FR and TUG scores for the overall population were 19.1 (7.0)kg, 19.0 (12.1)kg, 28.9 (39.7)cm, TUG 19.2 (11.0)s respectively. The mean MoCA and VCAT scores were 21.1 (7.1) and 20.3 (6.3) respectively. Right HGS correlated moderately with MoCA (r=0.367) and VCAT scores (r=0.397). Left HGS had a weak to moderate correlation with MoCA (r=0.281) and VCAT (0.271). FR, however, was not correlated with either MoCA (r=0.073) and VCAT (0.020). TUG scores were moderately negatively correlated with MoCA (-0.3206) but weakly correlated with VCAT (-0.175) Conclusion Our evaluation of the relationship between cognitive scores and physical performance in a falls and syncope clinic setting found that a relationship exists between muscle strength measured with grip strength and composite assessment of gait and balance using the TUG. Dynamic balance measured with functional reach, however, was not associated with cognitive function. Future studies will need to identify the possible mechanisms linking cognitive function with strength and gait in order to establish cognitive function as a modifiable risk factor for falls in 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".