Handgrip Strength has Declined Among Adults, Particularly Males, from Shanghai Since 2000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Handgrip strength (HGS) is an excellent marker of general strength capacity and health among adults. We aimed to calculate temporal trends in HGS for adults from Shanghai between 2000 and 2020. METHODS: Adults aged 20-59 years from Shanghai, China, were included. Representative cross-sectional HGS data (n = 127,756) were collected in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2014, and 2020. HGS was measured using isometric dynamometry and was adjusted for body size (i.e., height-squared). Trends in mean adjusted HGS were calculated using general linear models with adjustments for age, sex, location, occupation, blood pressure, and exercise time. Trends in distributional characteristics were described visually and calculated as the ratio of coefficients of variation (CVs). RESULTS: We found a significant, small decline in mean adjusted HGS (effect size (ES) [95%CI]: -0.21 [-0.22, -0.20]) since the year 2000. Negligible temporal differences were found across age, location, and occupation groups, with a 2.8-fold greater decline for men than for women. Overall, distributional variability declined negligibly (ratio of CVs [95% CI]: 0.92 [0.91, 0.93]). We also observed a negligible trend (ES < 0.20) in distributional asymmetry among adults with low adjusted HGS (below the 25th percentile) and a small decline (ES = 0.20-0.49) in adults with high adjusted HGS (above the 75th percentile). CONCLUSIONS: There was a recent small decline in adjusted HGS for adults from Shanghai, which was greater for men than for women and nonuniform across the population. A decline in adjusted HGS may represent a decline in the general/functional health of the population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".