Physical frailty intensifies the positive association of oral frailty with poor global cognitive function and executive function among older adults especially for females: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral frailty is reported to increase the risk of new onset of mild cognitive impairment. Whereas, the association of oral frailty with cognition among older adults in both physical frail and non-physical frail status has not been sufficiently explored, and whether there are sex differences in the association is unclear. This study investigated the association of oral frailty and physical frailty with global cognitive function and executive function among older adults, as well as the sex differences in such association. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 307 participants aged ≥ 60 years old from communities between June 2023 and August 2023, in Nanjing, China. Global cognitive function and executive function were assessed by using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Trail Making Tests A (TMT-A), respectively. Oral frailty was identified by the combination of natural tooth, Oral Frailty Index-8 (OFI-8), and oral diadochokinesis. Physical frailty was measured by using Fried phenotype model which contained 5 criteria: unintentional weight loss, weakness, exhaustion, slowness, and low physical activity. Multiple linear regression analyses for overall participants and stratified by sex and presence or absence of physical frailty were performed, respectively, to examine the association between oral frailty and cognitive functions. RESULTS: The median age of participants was 70 years old. The study included 158 (51.5%) females, 53 (17.3%) individuals with physical frailty, and 65 (21.2%) participants with oral frailty. After adjustment, the association between oral frailty and global cognitive function was observed in the physical frailty group (B = -2.67, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: -5.27 to -0.07, p = 0.045) and the females with physical frailty (B = -4, 95% CI: -7.41 to -0.58, p = 0.024). Oral frailty was associated with executive function in overall participants (B = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.22, p = 0.037), physical frailty group (B = 23.68, 95% CI: 1.37 to 45.99, p = 0.038). In the adjusted models, oral frailty was significantly associated with executive function in all females (B = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.36, p = 0.009), in females without physical frailty (B = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.36, p = 0.027), and in females with physical frailty (B = 48.69, 95% CI: 7.17 to 90.21, p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Physical frailty intensifies the positive association of oral frailty with poor global cognitive function and executive function among older adults, particularly among females. It is ponderable to consider sex differences and facilitate the management of physical frailty when it comes to promoting cognitive health based on the perspective of oral health among older adults.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".