Analysis In Cognitive Disorder Predicting Sarcopenia And Prevention Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To understand the risk factors that lead to sarcopenia and explore the proportion of cognitive functions in predicting elderly sarcopenia. METHODS: Design a case-control study.A total of 90 individuals aged 60 years and above were recruited from the community of Hebei Yanda Nursing Home in June 2023. Sarcopenia was diagnosed according to the Asian Sarcopenia Working Group (AWGS) 2019 diagnostic criteria, the sarcopenia group includes those with possible sarcopenia, sarcopenia and severe sarcopenia.Skeletal muscle mass was measured by the bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), other tests for muscle laxation include grip, 6-meter step speed, and calf surrounding. Use the Berg Balance Scale(Berg) for balance function test and Montreal Cognitive Assessment(MOCA) for cognitive assessment. RESULTS: Among the 90 residents enrolled in the study, 44 in sarcopenia group, including 18 with possible sarcopenia,21 with sarcopenia and 5 with severe sarcopenia. Single factor analysis shows that among 10 variables including age, gender, height, weight, BMI, grip, MOCA score, Berg score, waist and hip ratio and self -fatigue, only age, height, grip, MOCA score, Berg score have significant differences in 2 group (P < 0.05). According to the binary logistic regression, grip (OR = 0.777, 95%CI: 6.68-8.81, P < 0.05) and MOCA scores(OR = 0.717, 95%CI: 5.64-8.78, P < 0.05) are independent protection factor in predicting sarcopenia, the regression equation: logit (P) = 8.591-0.252 × grip-0.332× MOCA score. The results of the ROC curve analysis show that the background value is 0.871, sensitivity is 90.91%, and specificity is 71.74%. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive disorder may be a factor in predicting sarcopenia. Paying attention to cognitive function in elderly is making great contributions for delaying the decline in physical ability and the development of cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".