Relationship between cognitive and motor functions, and dual task performance in community dwelling older adults: gender differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dual-task performances may be impaired with the impairment in motor performance and cognitive functions due to aging. The aim of the present cross-sectional study is to investigate the gender differences in dual-task performance. A total of 82 community-dwelling older adults (41 males and 41 females) aged between 65 and 75 years were included. Motor performance was evaluated with the sit-to-stand test, the timed up and go test, 10 m walking test and cognitive functions were evaluated with Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test. Dual-task performances were evaluated as motor-motor and cognitive-motor performance. Mean age was 70.12±3.18 years for females and 69.80±3.21 years for males. Both groups were similar with regard to age, education status, exercise habits, and working status. In dual-task performances, females were found to complete motor-motor tasks in a shorter time as compared to males (p=0.001). Cognitive-motor task performances were found to be better in males (p=0.038). It is considered that gender differences in dual-task performances could be understood better in the light of the results of the present study and treatment may be arranged in accordance with these gender differences.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".