Frailty, grip strength, blood-based biomarkers of neuropathology, and incident dementia: a 17-year longitudinal population study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While previous research has demonstrated that frailty is associated with increased dementia risk over time, large multi-decade prospective population-based cohort studies remain limited. Furthermore, the association between lower grip strength and blood-based biomarkers of neuropathology and global cognitive function remains under-investigated. METHODS: We investigated the relationship between varying levels of baseline frailty (measured using a deficit accumulation Frailty Index [FI]) and dementia incidence over 17 years, as well as associations of grip strength (hand, pinch, and key, assessed at 8- and 14-year follow-up) with blood-based biomarkers of neuropathology (year 8) and with global cognitive function (year 14) in a population-representative cohort of 9940 mid- to late-life (50-75 years) individuals. RESULTS: In a subsample of 6357 participants with available dementia information at 17-year follow-up (mean age at baseline [SD], 61.7 [6.6] years; female, 54.3%), 516 received an all-cause dementia diagnosis. Over this time, individuals in the highest FI quintile demonstrated a significantly higher risk of all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; 95% CI, 1.18-2.60) and a vascular dementia diagnosis (HR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.22-4.91). Cross-sectionally, lower handgrip strength was associated with elevated blood levels of neurofilament light chain (β = -.01, p = .007) and pTau181 (β=-.004, p = .017) at 8-year follow-up, as well as poorer cognitive function on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (β = .02, p = .042) at 14-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This study strengthens evidence that frailty is a risk factor for dementia in mid- to late-life. It also suggests that it is of considerable importance to assess frailty and grip strength in individuals "at risk" of cognitive decline.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".