Association between handgrip strength asymmetry and cognitive function across ethnicity in rural China: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Recently, the association between handgrip strength (HGS) asymmetry and cognition has been revealed, but evidences are still scarce. Particularly, the association between asymmetric HGS and cognitive performance in various cognitive domains is unclear and whether this association is stable across ethnic groups is unknown. Method The population was from a longitudinal study in rural areas of Fuxin, Liaoning, China. The Chinese version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Basic (MOCA-BC) was used to evaluate the cognitive function. The HGS ratio was calculated as maximal non-dominant HGS divided by maximal dominant HGS. HGS ratio <0.9 or >1.1 was classified as asymmetric dominant/non-dominant HGS, respectively. Generalized linear models were used to analyze the relationship between asymmetric HGS and cognitive function adjusted for HGS, handedness, wave, age, sex, education, ethnicity, smoking, drinking, physical labor level, BMI, hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia. Result A total of 2,969 participants ≥50 years were included in this study. Adjusted for HGS and other confunding variables, there was an inverted U-shaped association between HGS ratio and MoCA-BC scores (Pnon–linear = 0.004). The association between HGS ratio and MoCA-BC scores was inconsistent among ethnic groups (Pinteraction = 0.048). In Han, only asymmetric non-dominant HGS was associated with lower cognitive scores [β = −0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): −1.26 ∼−0.08, P = 0.027]; in Mongolians, asymmetric dominant HGS(β = −0.60, 95% CI: −1.35 ∼ 0.15, P = 0.115) and asymmetric non-dominant HGS (β = −0.56, 95% CI: −1.42 ∼ 0.31, P = 0.206) were all associated with lower cognitive scores, although no statistical significance was found. Asymmetric non-dominant HGS and lower HGS, but not asymmetric dominant HGS were all independently associated with impairment of Delayed Recall (OR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.05 ∼ 1.74; OR per 5 kg decrease = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01 ∼ 1.21) and Fluency (OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.15 ∼ 1.78; OR per 5 kg decrease = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.02 ∼ 1.19). Both asymmetric dominant HGS (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.07 ∼ 1.67) and lower HGS (OR per 5 kg decrease = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.10 ∼ 1.32) were associated with impairment of visuoperception. Conclusion HGS and HGS asymmetry were all independently related to lower global cognitive performance. The association between HGS asymmetry and cognitive function varies among ethnic groups.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".