Peer Review #3 of "Slower maximal walking speed is associated with poorer global cognitive function among older adults residing in China (v0.1)"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Maintaining both walking speed and cognitive function is essential for active, healthy aging.This study investigated age-related differences in walking speed and global cognitive function with aging and the association between them among older adults residing in the developing country of China.Methods: This cross-sectional study measured usual (UWS) and maximal walking speed (MWS) of participants for 6 meters.The Chinese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment was used to evaluate global cognition through in-person interviews.Analyses of variance were used to compare the differences in UWS, MWS, and global cognition between genders and age groups.Multiple linear regression models were used to determine the association between walking speed and global cognitive function.Results: In total, 791 Chinese adults (252 men and 539 women) aged 60-89 years were included in this study.Markedly slowed UWS and worse global cognitive function scores were observed for both genders among adults ≥80 years of age.MWS slowed considerably in men ≥85 years of age and in women ≥80 years of age.There was a significant gender difference in MWS-with men walking faster than women-but not in UWS.Linear regression analysis adjusted for the confounding factors of gender, height, weight, years of education, and chronic disease indicated that MWS, but not UWS, was significantly associated with global cognitive function (β = 0.086, [0.177, 1.657], P = 0.015) such that slower maximal walking speed was associated with poorer cognitive performance.This association was statistically significant only for adults aged 75-79 years (β = 0.261 [0.647, 4.592], P =0.010).Conclusion: Walking speed was slower in the older age groups.Global cognitive function deteriorated markedly after 80 years of age.After controlling for confounding variables, slower MWS, but not UWS, was associated with poorer global cognitive function.MWS may serve as a potential indicator for earlier identification of poor cognition and motoric cognitive risk syndrome in an older Chinese 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 | 0.008 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.269 | 0.088 |
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".