ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2025
Sex Differences in the Association Between Physical Functioning and Cognition in Two Central European Populations.
Article in European journal of neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Sex Differences in the Association Between Physical Functioning and Cognition in Two Central European Populations.European journal of neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEvidence on the relationship between physical and cognitive functions remains inconsistent, and the role of sex differences is underexplored. This study examines the predictive value of a composite Physical Functioning Score (PFS) for cognitive function and assesses sex-specific associations in an Eastern European population.
methodsData from 7309 participants (mean age 59 ± 7.3 years) from the Czech Republic and Poland arms of the HAPIEE study were analyzed. PFS was derived from a 23-item measure including activity of daily living (ADL/IADL), grip strength, functional limitations, and physical activity. Cognitive function was assessed using standardized tests of memory, verbal fluency, and speed/concentration. Logistic regression, adjusted for demographic, lifestyle, and health factors, was used to examine the association between PFS and cognitive status. Model performance was evaluated using AUC-ROC and cross-validation.
resultsPFS exhibited a dose-dependent association with cognitive impairment (adjusted odds ratios: 1.15 for moderate, 1.79 for low PFS, compared with higher PFS). PFS demonstrated robust predictive ability for cognition (AUC = 0.75). Sex differences were significant: women with moderate PFS had a 44% higher risk of cognitive impairment (OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.15-1.79), while those with low PFS had double the risk (OR: 2.28, 95% CI: 1.69-3.08). Associations were weaker in men, even at very low PFS (OR: 1.32, 95% CI: 0.91-1.92).
conclusionsPFS is a practical tool for predicting cognitive decline, with stronger associations in women. Interventions to improve PF may preserve cognitive health, particularly in older women. Longitudinal studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.