MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195088876 · doi:10.1080/22423982.2021.1966186

Hand grip strength and chair stand test amongst Greenlandic Inuit: reference values and international comparisons

2021· article· en· W3195088876 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Bjerregaard, Charlotte Brandstrup Ottendahl, Marit E. Jørgensen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Circumpolar Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNovo Nordisk Fonden
KeywordsPercentileGrip strengthDemographyMedicineBody mass indexReference valuesPopulationGerontologyPhysical therapyInternal medicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Circumpolar HealthSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207