The Role of Different Weakness Cut-points for Future Cognitive Impairment in Older Americans.

Aug 28, 2023

Contributors: Ryan McGrath,Grant R Tomkinson,Jeremy M Hamm,Kirsten Juhl,Kelly Knoll,Kelly Parker,Ashleigh E Smith,Yeong Rhee

New 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.
Longitudinal panel.
The 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.
The 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.
Persons 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.
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.

Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Author

admin

View all posts

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

Ryan McGrath,Grant R Tomkinson,Jeremy M Hamm,Kirsten Juhl,Kelly Knoll,Kelly Parker,Ashleigh E Smith,Yeong Rhee
Ryan McGrath

Healthy Aging North Dakota (HAND), North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA; Department of Health, Nutrition, and Exercise Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA; Fargo VA Healthcare System, Fargo, ND, USA; Department of Geriatrics, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, USA; Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition, and Activity (ARENA), Allied Health & Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. Electronic address: ryan.mcgrath@ndsu.edu.

Grant R Tomkinson

Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition, and Activity (ARENA), Allied Health & Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Jeremy M Hamm

Department of Psychology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA.

Kirsten Juhl

Department of Internal Medicine, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, USA; Sanford Health, Fargo, ND, USA.

Kelly Knoll

Healthy Aging North Dakota (HAND), North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA; Department of Health, Nutrition, and Exercise Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA.

Kelly Parker

Department of Psychology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA.

Ashleigh E Smith

Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition, and Activity (ARENA), Allied Health & Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Yeong Rhee

Department of Health, Nutrition, and Exercise Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA.