Biological Sex and the Association Between Grip Strength and Cardiovascular Disease: a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This scoping review examines how biological sex has been considered in studies investigating the association between grip strength and cardiovascular outcomes and risk factors. Methods: We used the Askey and O'Malley framework, reported as per the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. A search was conducted in four electronic bibliographic databases to identify relevant peer-reviewed studies published after 2001. Results: Of the 39 included studies, 82.0% (n = 32) used biological sex as a confounder variable in the association of interest. Two studies used interaction terms between biological sex and grip strength and found no statistically significant interactions. Five studies used sex-stratified analyses alone. Three of these studies found that the cardiovascular risk due to low grip strength is higher in males than in females. Two other studies used both interaction terms between biological sex and grip strength and sex-stratification analyses and found no statistically significant differences. Sociocultural gender was not considered in any of the identified studies. Conclusion: We found that biological sex was often considered as a confounder variable in the association between grip strength and cardiovascular outcomes, as well as cardiovascular risk factors. On the other hand, two studies reported the presence of effect modification by sex rather than confounding, that these associations were stronger in males versus females. Five other studies did not identify evidence of interaction nor effect modification. Future research is needed to clarify the nature of these associations and understand any potential biological mechanisms.
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 | 0.021 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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.
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".