Correlation between muscle power and cognitive function in older adults Community-dwelling: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aging is a natural process in which physiologically functions decline. Overall, cognitive and functional aspects are intertwined, parameters such as decreased walking speed and impairment of subjective memory may represent health complications, such as motor cognitive risk syndrome. However, the literature lacks evidence on cognitive and functional relationships. Thus, this study aimed to verify the correlation of two levels of muscle power with the cognitive function of community-dwelling older adults. This is a correlational cross-sectional study. The sample consisted of 38 older adults (68±7 years; 81.6% women), assessed for muscle power via the chair rise test, for the assessment of cognitive functions the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used and adapted versions of the Trails Test A and B (TTA and TTB), animal category verbal fluency test and Stroop test. Spearman’s correlation was used to assess the relationship between the power variable and the cognitive variables. For all analyses, a 5% significance level was established. Our results showed an association of the best power levels with a positive direction for global cognition (rho = 0.35; p = 0.02) and with a negative direction as reading conditions (rho = −0.35; p = 0.02) and Stroop color test (rho = −0.39; p = 0.01). In community-dwelling older adults, higher levels of muscle power are associated with higher global cognition scores and greater agility in the attention involved in reading words and naming colors.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".