MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284893993 · doi:10.3390/geriatrics7040074

The Prevalence of Low Handgrip Strength and Its Predictors among Outpatient Older Adults in a Tertiary Care Setting: A Cross-Sectional Study

2022· article· en· W4284893993 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Manchumad Manjavong, Apichart So-ngern, Panita Limpawattana, Natapong Manomaiwong, Thanisorn Kamsuanjig, Chudapha Khammak, Pongsak Chokkhatiwat, Kamolthorn Srisuwannakit

Bibliographic record

VenueGeriatrics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSarcopeniaCross-sectional studyOutpatient clinicOdds ratioPhysical therapyGerontologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Low muscle strength is linked to several adverse health outcomes. However, there are limited data regarding its prevalence and associated factors in Thai older adults. This study aimed to fill that gap. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted with patients aged ≥ 60 years at the outpatient clinic of the internal medicine department of a tertiary care hospital from April 2020 to December 2021. Patient characteristics were collected, and a handgrip dynamometer was used to measure handgrip strength (HGS). Low HGS was defined according to the 2019 recommendations of the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia. RESULTS: In total, 198 patients were recruited. The prevalence of low HGS was 51%. Median HGS was 17.8 kg and 27.7 kg in women and men, respectively. Every age per year increase, greater number of medications of any type, and lower Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score were independent factors associated with low HGS, with adjusted odds ratios of 1.1, 1.2, and 0.9, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Low HGS was prevalent among older patients in this setting, indicating a high degree of possible sarcopenia. As there were some modifiable factors associated with low HGS, routine measurement, medication review, and cognitive evaluation are recommended for early diagnosis and management.

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)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeriatricsSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207