Strength and multiple types of physical activity predict cognitive function independent of low muscle mass in NHANES 1999–2002
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Multiple domains of cognitive function decline with age, resulting in a significant burden on quality of life and the healthcare system. Recent studies increasingly point to links between muscle mass, particularly low muscle mass, and risk of cognitive decline. However, complex relationships exist between muscle mass, muscle function, physical activity, and overall health. Methods Data from 1,424 adults 60+ years old in the 1999‐2000 and 2001‐2002 editions of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) were used to investigate the relationship between low muscle mass and cognitive function after accounting for strength, physical activity, and nutritional and metabolic risk factors for cognitive decline. Results Muscle strength and physical activity independently predicted performance in the digit symbol substitution test, with muscle mass and muscle strength explaining 0.5% and 5% of the variance in cognitive function, respectively. In graphical network analyses, the association between low muscle mass and cognitive function appeared to be primarily mediated by neuromuscular function. Physical activity was associated with strength but, surprisingly, not muscle mass, which was instead more closely related to total mass. Conclusions Low muscle mass is a relatively poor predictor of cognitive function after accounting for physical activity and strength in older individuals from a representative population dataset in the US. Future studies should account for the way in which muscle mass is accrued, which is likely to confound any association between muscle mass and health outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".