Associations between Multimorbidity and Physical Performance in Older Chinese Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Evidence on the association between physical performance and multimorbidity is scarce in Asia. This study aimed to identify multimorbidity patterns and their association with physical performance among older Chinese adults. Methods: Individuals aged ≥60 years from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study 2011–2015 (N = 10,112) were included. Physical performance was measured by maximum grip strength (kg) and average gait speed (m/s) categorized as fast (>0.8 m/s), median (>0.6–0.8 m/s), and slow (≤0.6 m/s). Multimorbidity patterns were explored using exploratory factor analysis. Generalized estimating equation was conducted. Results: Four multimorbidity patterns were identified: cardio–metabolic, respiratory, mental–sensory, and visceral–arthritic. An increased number of chronic conditions was associated with decreased normalized grip strength (NGS). Additionally, the highest quartile of factor scores for cardio–metabolic (β = −0.06; 95% Confidence interval (CI) = −0.07, −0.05), respiratory (β = −0.03; 95% CI = −0.05, −0.02), mental–sensory (β = −0.04; 95% CI = −0.05, −0.03), and visceral–arthritic (β = −0.04; 95% CI = −0.05, −0.02) patterns were associated with lower NGS compared with the lowest quartile. Participants with ≥4 chronic conditions were 2.06 times more likely to have a slow gait speed. Furthermore, the odds ratios for the highest quartile of factor scores of four patterns with slow gait speed compared with the lowest quartile ranged from 1.26–2.01. Conclusion: Multimorbidity was related to worse physical performance, and multimorbidity patterns were differentially associated with physical performance. A shift of focus from single conditions to the requirements of a complex multimorbid population was needed for research, clinical guidelines, and health-care services. Grip strength and gait speed could be targeted to routinely measure clinical performance among older adults with multimorbidity, especially mental–sensory disorders, in clinical settings.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".