ArticleJournal of the American Medical Directors Association2023
The Role of Different Weakness Cut-Points for Future Cognitive Impairment in Older Americans.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Weakness Thresholds Are Differentially Linked to Cognitive Function by Obesity Status in Older Americans.Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports · 2024Article
- Weakness Status is Differentially Associated with Time to Diabetes in Americans.Advances in geriatric medicine and research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesNew absolute and normalized handgrip strength (HGS) cut-points may not yield similar predictive value for cognitive performance. We sought to determine the associations of (1) each absolute and normalized weakness cut-point, and (2) compounding weakness on future cognitive impairment in older Americans.
designLongitudinal panel. SETTING AND
participantsThe analytic sample included 11,116 participants aged ≥65 years from the 2006 to 2018 waves of the Health and Retirement Study. Participants from the Health and Retirement Study completed detailed interviews that included physical measures and core interviews.
methodsThe modified Telephone Interview of Cognitive Status assessed cognitive function and persons scoring <11 were classified as having a cognitive impairment. A handgrip dynamometer measured HGS. Men were considered weak if their HGS was <35.5 kg (absolute), <0.45 kg/kg (body mass normalized), or <1.05 kg (body mass index normalized), whereas women were classified as weak if their HGS was <20.0 kg, <0.337 kg/kg, or <0.79 kg. Compounding weakness included those below 1, 2, or all 3 cut-points. Generalized estimating equations quantified the associations.
resultsPersons considered weak under the absolute cut-point had 1.62 (95% CI 1.34-1.96) greater odds for future cognitive impairment, but no significant associations were observed for those classified as weak under the body mass [odds ratio (OR) 1.12, CI 0.91-1.36] and body mass index normalized (OR 1.17, CI 0.95-1.43) cut-points. Older Americans below all 3 weakness cut-points had 1.47 (CI 1.15-1.88) greater odds for future cognitive impairment, but no significant associations were found for persons classified as weak under 1 (OR 1.08, CI 0.83-1.42) or 2 (OR 1.19, CI 0.91-1.55) cut-points. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our findings suggest that each weakness cut-point has differential prognostic value for future cognitive impairment, and aggregating weakness cut-points may improve their predictive utility. Consideration should be given to how weakness categories are uniquely linked to cognitive function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.