Handgrip Strength And Cognitive Impairment In Midlife And Older Adults: Cooper Center Longitudinal Study (CCLS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Handgrip strength (HGS), an evidence-based indicator of overall muscular strength, has been linked to numerous health-related outcomes. The purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between HGS and cognitive impairment in a healthy, older population. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 927 CCLS participants (male n = 653, female n = 274), age of 55 years and older, completed HGS and cognitive function assessment as part of their clinical examination at Cooper Clinic in Dallas, TX between 2019 and 2021. HGS was measured 3 times on each hand, and the average of the maximum result on each hand was utilized in the analysis. Cognitive function was evaluated with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA); scores <26 were used as an indicator of cognitive impairment. Adjusted relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using multiple regression of cognitive impairment on HGS adjusted for age, sex, education, current smoking, BMI, glucose, cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure. RESULTS: The mean age was 62.8 ± 7.1 years; mean HGS was 37.6 + 12.0 kg, and the mean MoCA score was 26.7 + 2.5. The prevalence of cognitive impairment was 26.4. The risk of cognitive impairment was higher for older age (RR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.02 – 1.39 per decade) and male sex (RR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.11 – 1.88) and lower for college graduates (RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.41 – 0.67). The adjusted RR for cognitive impairment was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.86 – 0.99) per 5 kg increment in HGS. Additionally, when the sample was divided into sex-specific tertiles of HGS, participants in the lowest tertile had the largest unadjusted prevalence of cognitive impairment (Tertile 1: 34.4%, Tertile 2: 23.1%, and Tertile 3: 22.7%, p for trend = 0.002). However, when adjusted for age, sex, and education, the trend was no longer significant (p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Higher levels of HGS spear to be inversely related to cognitive impairment. Therefore, regular participation in muscle strengthening activities may play a protective role against cognitive decline.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".