Physical Fitness Measures as Potential Markers of Low Cognitive Function in Japanese Community-Dwelling Older Adults without Apparent Cognitive Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detecting signs of cognitive impairment as early as possible is one of the most urgent challenges in preventive care of dementia. It has still been unclear whether physical fitness measures can serve as markers of low cognitive function, a sign of cognitive impairment, in older people free from dementia. The aim of the present study was to examine an association between each of five physical fitness measures and global cognition in Japanese community-dwelling older adults without apparent cognitive problems. The baseline research of the Sasaguri Genkimon Study was conducted from May to August 2011 in Sasaguri town, Fukuoka, Japan. Of the 2,629 baseline subjects who were aged 65 years or older and not certified as individuals requiring nursing care by the town, 1,552 participants without apparent cognitive problems (Mini-Mental State Examination score ≥24) were involved in the present study (59.0% of the baseline subjects, median age: 72 years, men: 40.1%). Global cognitive function was measured by the Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Handgrip strength, leg strength, sit-to-stand rate, gait speed, and one-leg stand time were examined as physical fitness measures. In multiple linear regression analyses, each of the five physical fitness measures was positively associated with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score after adjusting for age and sex (p < 0.001). These associations were preserved after additional adjustment for years of formal education, body mass index, and other confounding factors (p < 0.001). The present study first demonstrated the associations between multiple aspects of physical fitness and global cognitive function in Japanese community-dwelling older people without apparent cognitive problems. These results suggest that each of the physical fitness measures has a potential as a single marker of low cognitive function in older populations free from dementia and thereby can be useful in community-based preventive care of dementia.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".