Association between handgrip strength and cognition in a Chinese population with Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background This study aimed to explore the level and changes in handgrip strength among preclinical Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and AD patients and to evaluate the association between handgrip strength and cognitive function. Methods A total of 1431 participants from the memory clinic of Shanghai JiaoTong University Affiliated Sixth People’s Hospital and community were enrolled in the final analysis, including 596 AD, 288 mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 547 normal individuals (NC). All participants received a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment. Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Basic (MoCA-BC), and the Chinese version of Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination III (ACE-III-CV) were used as cognitive tests. The receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was plotted to assess the power of handgrip strength as a screening measure to discriminate AD and MCI. Results The results showed that handgrip strength in the MCI group was significantly lower than that of NC group, and the AD group had a further decline (both P < 0.01 ). Multivariate logistic regression was performed with the handgrip strength quartiles, and the results showed that the ORs of AD for increasing levels of handgrip strength were 1.00, 0.58 (0.46–0.78), 0.51 (0.36–0.73), and 0.50 (0.35–0.68), showing a decreasing trend ( P for trend < 0.01 ). The ROC curve demonstrated that the handgrip strength cutoff points for the identification of AD were 16.8 and 20.7 kg among the female participants above and under 70 yrs and 24.4 and 33.3 kg for the male participants above and under 70 yrs, respectively. Similarly, for the identification of MCI, cutoff points were 17.5 and 21.9 kg for females above 70 yrs and under 70 yrs, and 25.8 and 36.2 kg for males above 70 yrs and under 70 yrs, respectively. Conclusions Our study provided the further knowledge on the relationship between noncognitive features and cognition in populations with differing cognitive status, revealed that the stronger handgrip strength was associated with better performances on cognitive function. It can be speculated that handgrip strength can help early recognition of Chinese AD patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".