← Back to cohort
International norms for adult handgrip strength: A systematic review of data on 2.4 million adults aged 20 to 100+ years from 69 countries and regions
Grant R. Tomkinson, Justin J. Lang, Lukáš Rubín, Ryan McGrath, Bethany Gower, Terry Boyle, Marilyn G. Klug, Alexandra Mayhew, Henry T Blake, Francisco B. Ortega, Cristina Cadenas‐Sánchez, Costan G. Magnussen, Brooklyn J. Fraser, Tetsuhiro Kidokoro, Yang Liu, Kaare Christensen, Darryl P. Leong
Bibliographic record
VenueJournal of sport and health science/Journal of Sport and Health Science · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster UniversityPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesHorizon 2020Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet, Københavns UniversitetInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health Research Southampton Biomedical Research CentreAlfaisal UniversityNational Institute on AgingUniversidade do Extremo Sul CatarinenseTaipei Veterans General HospitalUniversidad de SonoraNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research CentreFakultet Medicinskih Nauka, Univerziteta U KragujevcuNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesMax-Planck-Institut für Evolutionäre AnthropologieUniversidad de Castilla-La ManchaCalifornia State University, SacramentoNational Center for Geriatrics and GerontologyUniversidade Estadual de CampinasSyddansk UniversitetGöteborgs UniversitetSahlgrenska UniversitetssjukhusetUniversidade de São PauloUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisChinese University of Hong KongCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversidade de MacauSahlgrenska AkademinKerman University of Medical SciencesKarolinska InstitutetUniversity of South AustraliaHebrew University of JerusalemFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of SydneyKorea National Sport UniversityDirectorate for Biological SciencesUniversity of AdelaideMonash UniversityNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsDeakin UniversityUniversity of MelbourneMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologySt. Jude Children's Research HospitalTrinity College DublinWorld Health OrganizationUniversity of TokyoUniversidade Federal FluminenseMekelle UniversityFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Western AustraliaNational University of SingaporeNational Heart Foundation of AustraliaEscola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sérgio AroucaUniversity of GlasgowMcMaster UniversityUniversity of OxfordUniversity of SussexAustralian GovernmentUniversity of SydneyUniversity College DublinManchester Metropolitan UniversityUniversity College LondonUniversity of SouthamptonGentofte HospitalNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversidade Federal de PelotasUniversidad Pública de NavarraMuséum National d'Histoire NaturelleUniversidade Federal de ViçosaUniversität BremenIndian Institute of ScienceUniversidade Federal do AcreUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation TrustMinistry of Culture, Sports and TourismCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red Fragilidad y Envejecimiento SaludableMax-Planck-Institut für demografische ForschungUniversitetet i AgderEidgenössische Technische Hochschule ZürichEdith Cowan UniversityLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenBayerische ForschungsstiftungUniversidade Federal de Santa CatarinaUniversity of LouisvilleEuropean CommissionUnderstanding SocietyUniversity of the PhilippinesUniversität BaselUniversity of MinnesotaFundação Oswaldo CruzShanghai Educational Development FoundationNational Institutes of HealthPrince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University
KeywordsGerontologyEnvironmental healthMedicinePsychology
Abstract
OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.
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.
metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.132
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.040 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
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.
The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview
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".
Quick stats
Citations56
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes