Correlación entre la potencia muscular y la función cognitiva de ancianos que viven en comunidad: un estudio transversal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aging is a natural process in whichphysiologically functions decline. Overall, cognitive andfunctional aspects are intertwined, parameters such asdecreased walking speed and impairment of subjectivememory may represent health complications, such asmotor cognitive risk syndrome. However, the literaturelacks evidence on cognitive and functional relationships.Thus, this study aimed to verify the correlation of twolevels of muscle power with the cognitive function ofcommunity-dwelling older adults. This is a correlationalcross-sectional study. The sample consisted of 38 olderadults (68±7 years; 81.6% women), assessed for musclepower via the chair rise test, for the assessment of cognitivefunctions 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 andStroop test. Spearman’s correlation was used to assess therelationship between the power variable and the cognitivevariables. For all analyses, a 5% significance level wasestablished. Our results showed an association of the bestpower 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 globalcognition scores and greater agility in the attention involved inreading 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".