Handgrip Strength as a Reflection of General Muscle Strength in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muscle dysfunction is one of the main features in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Handgrip strength (HS) has been used as a representation of general muscle strength in various populations, and a few studies found correlation between HS and other measures of upper and lower limbs’ muscle strength in the general population, although this was not yet studied in depth in COPD. The aims of this study were to verify if HS is cross-sectionally well correlated with upper and lower limbs’ muscle strength in individuals with COPD, and to identify a new cutoff for handgrip weakness in this population. HS was assessed by a dynamometer, whereas other muscle strength assessments comprised maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) of the quadriceps femoris and 1-repetition maximum (1RM) of biceps and triceps brachii, pectoralis major, latissimus dorsi and quadriceps femoris. Additional assessments included pulmonary function and volumes, body composition and exercise capacity. Fifty individuals with COPD were studied (65 ± 7 years; FEV1 51 ± 14%pred). HS showed moderate-to-strong correlations with all 1-RM assessments (0.62<r < 0.75) and especially with MVC of the quadriceps femoris (r = 0.83) (p < 0.05 for all). Correlations were stronger for male than female individuals, and the assessment performed on right, left or dominant hand did not present significant differences. A cutoff of 0.3892 for HS/weight yielded an AUC = 0.90 to identify weakness. In conclusion, HS is a good reflection of upper and lower limbs’ muscle strength in individuals with COPD. Its usefulness as a surrogate for more complex assessments must be based on the settings and conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".