Handgrip strength is associated with risk of falls in physically active older women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors of this study inquire about the association between handgrip strength (HGS) and the risk of falls in physically active older women. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 135 women between 50 and 90 years of age who were referred for the follow-up evaluations of HGS using dynamometry and the Tinetti scale to determine the risk of falls. The mean age was 68.8 ± 8.5 years. A total of 31.9% of women had a high risk of falls, and 55% reported five or more falls in the past six months. In addition, our results indicated that grip strength decreases as risk of falls increases (minimal risk = 42.8, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.8, 45.8; moderate risk = 31.3, 95% CI: 29.1, 33.5; high risk = 21.9, 95% CI: 19.3, 24.6). It should be considered that in physically active women aged over 50 years, the grip strength could be a predictor of falls and risk of falls. Evaluation of grip strength is a low-cost type of assessment that can be included as a part of physical tests.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".