Associations of Upper-Extremity Exercise Capacity and Grip Strength With Cognitive Domains in Patients With COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment (CI), which has been reported in COPD, has been related to physical performance. However, the association between CI and upper-extremity functions is unknown. We aimed to compare upper-extremity exercise capacity and grip strength between subjects with COPD with and without CI and to determine the relationship of upper-extremity functions with specific cognitive domains. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 76 subjects with COPD (mean age 66.8 ± 7.5 y, FEV 1 % 47.12 ± 14.10) were classified as with and without CI according to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Clinical characteristics, upper-extremity exercise capacity (6-min pegboard ring test [6PBRT]), grip strength (hand dynamometer), dyspnea severity (modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale), disease-specific health status (COPD Assessment Test), and disease-specific quality of life (St George Respiratory Questionnaire) were compared between groups, and the relationship of upper-extremity functions with cognitive subdomains was analyzed by multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: The number of 6PBRT rings ( P = .01) and the grip strength ( P = .033) were lower in subjects with CI. Subjects with CI had lower FEV 1 % ( P = .038), arterial oxygenation ( P = .002), exercise habits ( P = .033), health status ( P = .01), quality of life ( P = .042); and higher dyspnea ( P < .001), smoking consumption ( P = .032), emergency admission ( P = .02), and hospitalization ( P = .042). The adjusted model showed that executive functions and attention were related to upper-extremity capacity ( β = 14.4 and β = 10.2, respectively) and hand-grip strength ( β = 1.85 and β = 1.49, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that upper-extremity functions might be decreased especially concerning executive functions and attention in subjects with COPD with CI.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".