Hand grip strength and chair stand test amongst Greenlandic Inuit: reference values and international comparisons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muscle strength is an important predictor for function and mortality among older adults. We measured hand grip strength among 1442 participants aged 15+ years and carried out a 30 second chair stand test among 786 participants aged 55+ years. Neither test has been carried out among the Inuit before. We present reference values for men and women as means with standard deviations and medians with 10th, 25th, 75th and 90th percentiles. Hand grip strength was higher among men than among women (means 45.2 kg and 25.8 kg; p < 0.0001), in linear regression analyses it increased with height (βmen = 0.69; βwomen = 0.46), weight (βmen = 0.24; βwomen = 0.08) and body mass index (βmen = 0.56; βwomen = 0.24), and decreased with age (βmen = −0.49; βwomen = −0.29) and Inuit genetic ancestry (βmen = −0.96; βwomen = −0.59). Chair stand score showed similar associations with sex (mean score for men and women 13.8 and 11.5; p < 0.0001), age (βmen = −0.22; βwomen = −0.20) and Inuit genetic ancestry (βmen = −0.38; βwomen = −0.41). The hand grip strength of the Inuit was at the same level as in European and North American populations whereas chair stand score was lower than that of a mostly white US population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".