Bidirectional Relationship among Cognitive Function, Muscle Mass, and Grip Strength in Older Adults: the BUSAN Study

Cognitive and Physical Function in Older Adults

Article information

Ann Geriatr Med Res. 2025;.agmr.24.0157

Publication date (electronic) : 2025 February 25

doi : https://doi.org/10.4235/agmr.24.0157

Du-Ri Kim ¹, Jong-Hwan Park ²^,³^,⁴, Ting-Fu Lai ¹^,⁵, Myung-Jun Shin ¹^,⁶^,⁷, Tae Sik Goh ¹^,⁸^,⁹, Jung Sub Lee ¹^,⁸^,⁹, Eunsoo Moon ¹^,¹⁰^,¹¹^,

, Yeong-Ae Yang ¹²^,¹³^,

¹Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea

²Department of Convergence Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Yangsan, Korea

³Department of Clinical Bio-Convergence, Graduate School of Convergence in Biomedical Science, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Yangsan, Korea

⁴Convergence Medical Institute of Technology, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea

⁵Graduate Institute of Sport, Leisure and Hospitality Management, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei City, 106, Taiwan

⁶Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea

⁷Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Pusan National University Hospital, Yangsan, Korea

⁸Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea

⁹Department of Orthopedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Pusan National University, Yangsan, Korea

¹⁰Department of Psychiatry, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea

¹¹Department of Psychiatry, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Yangsan, Korea

¹²Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Biomedical Science and Engineering, Inje University, Gimhae, Korea

¹³Institute of Aged Life Redesign, Inje University, Gimhae, Korea

Corresponding Author: Eunsoo Moon, MD, PhD Department of Psychiatry and Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, 179 Gudeok-ro, Seo-gu, Busan 49241, Korea E-mail: esmun@hanmail.net

Yeong-Ae Yang, PhD Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Biomedical Science and Engineering, Inje University, 197 Inje-ro, Gimhae 50834, Korea E-mail: otyya62@inje.ac.kr

*These authors contributed equally to this work.

Received 2024 September 26; Revised 2024 December 20; Accepted 2025 January 28.

Abstract

Background

With the increasing number of older individuals, understanding the interplay among muscle strength, muscle mass, and cognitive functions in aging populations is important. This study aimed to investigate the relationships among muscle mass, muscle strength, and cognitive function among older adults, with a focus on understanding the bidirectional correlations among these factors.

Methods

A total of 335 participants aged ≥65 years were analyzed. Comprehensive assessments, including body composition measurements, cognitive function evaluations using the Korean version of Mini-Mental State Examination (K-MMSE), tablet-based cognitive tests, and grip strength measurements were conducted. Statistical analyses included Spearman correlation and binary logistic regression explore the relationships among muscle mass, grip strength, and cognitive function while adjusting for potential confounders.

Results

Significant correlations were observed among grip strength, lean and skeletal muscle mass index, and cognitive function. Lower grip strength was associated with lower K-MMSE scores, indicating a higher risk of cognitive decline. But lean and skeletal muscle masses index were not associated with cognitive decline. Further analysis revealed a bidirectional relationship, with cognitive decline being associated with reduced grip strength.

Conclusion

Maintaining muscle strength and mass are important potential strategies to support cognitive health in older individuals. These findings suggest a potential reciprocal relationship where better cognitive function may also contribute to the maintenance or improvement of grip strength. This interconnectedness highlights the importance of considering both physical and cognitive health in aging populations.

Keywords: Sarcopenia; Cognition; Grip strength; Muscle strength; Aged

INTRODUCTION

The increasing proportion of older adult individuals underscores the urgent need to understand age-related changes in muscle and cognitive functions. Sarcopenia and cognitive decline, which are significant issues affecting older adults, have profound implications on the health and quality of life of this aging population.1) Sarcopenia, characterized by a progressive loss of skeletal muscle mass and function, leads to physical frailty, difficulties in daily activities, increased risk of falls, depression, frequent hospitalizations, and higher mortality rates.2,3) This decline in physical functional capacity substantially diminishes the quality of life in older adults.4) Concurrently, cognitive decline involves deterioration in cognitive functions, such as language, memory, reasoning, social cognition, and planning, which can range from mild forgetfulness to severe impairments that disrupt daily living and independence.5,6)

Recent research has indicated a correlation between sarcopenia and cognitive function. Skeletal muscles play a crucial role in brain health by producing neurotrophic factors, such as brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), which are essential for maintaining brain synapses and are influenced by muscle activity.7) Low skeletal muscle mass, which can lead to inflammation and altered myokine secretion, is a key contributor to cognitive impairment.8) Therefore, preserving muscle health is vital for maintaining cognitive function.

Muscle health also affects brain function. Low muscle mass and cognitive impairment are risk factors of mortality in older adults.9) The relationship between muscle mass and cognitive function appears to differ by sex, as evidenced by a study showing that men with lower muscle mass had a higher risk of cognitive decline, but no such correlation was found in women.10) Moreover, recent findings suggest that muscle function, rather than muscle mass alone, may have a closer link to cognitive health.11,12) In particular, grip strength, an indicator of muscle strength, has been shown to improve muscle function and, consequently, cognitive health.13) Previous large cohort studies have suggested that grip strength is associated with measures of neurocognitive brain health in both men and women, indicating that grip strength is a critical indicator of muscle function and aging.14,15)

Despite these insights, the precise nature of the relationship among muscle mass, muscle strength, and cognitive function remains unclear. Understanding these connections is crucial for developing effective interventions to enhance the physical and cognitive health of older adults. Thus, this study aimed to elucidate these bidirectional relationships by investigating how cognitive function is related to skeletal muscle mass and grip strength in older adults.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants

This study was conducted from September 2023 to November 2023 through the 2023 BUs-based Screening and Assessment Network (BUSAN) study of Busan National University Hospital. The study population comprised 400 individuals aged ≥65 years who visited welfare centers and senior community centers in Busan and agreed to participate in the study. After selection, a comprehensive health assessment, including body composition, Korean version of Mini-Mental State Examination (K-MMSE), grip strength, tablet cognitive evaluation, and the Symbol Digit Substitution Test (SDST), was conducted by the medical staff. After excluding 65 participants who dropped out or provided insufficient responses, 335 were included in the final analysis. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Busan National University Hospital (IRB No. 2305-030-127). The participants provided informed consent.

Characteristic of Participants

Body composition was assessed using bioelectrical impedance analysis (BWA 2.0; InBody Co., Seoul, South Korea), with measurements including height, weight, body mass index (BMI), body fat percentage, and skeletal muscle mass. Cognitive function was evaluated using the K-MMSE, tablet cognitive evaluation, and SDST, whereas muscle strength was measured using grip strength. Sociodemographic variables included age, sex, employment status, presence of a spouse, educational level, smoking status, and history of diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Participants’ K-MMSE scores and grip strength were categorized to identify those with cognitive impairment and grip strength below the threshold.

Measurements

Grip strength

Grip strength, a pivotal marker of global physical functionality, was quantified using a digital dynamometer (Grip-D TKK5101; Takey, Tokyo, Japan) to ensure reliable measurements. The procedure required the participants to align the dynamometer with the specific positioning of the hand, ensuring that the second knuckle of the index finger was perpendicular to the handle. Grip strength was measured twice in the dominant hand, and the average of these two measurements was reported as the final value.

SMMI/LMI

Skeletal muscle measurements were assessed using BWA 2.0 (InBody Co.). Skeletal muscle mass index (SMMI) was calculated by dividing skeletal muscle mass (kg) by height squared (m²). Low SMMI was defined as ≤10.75 kg/m² for men and ≤6.75 kg/m² for women.16) Lean mass index (LMI) was calculated by dividing lean muscle mass (kg) by height squared (m²), with low LMI defined as <14.6 kg/m².17)

Cognitive function tests

Cognitive function was assessed using the K-MMSE, a widely used tool in both clinical and research settings.18) The K-MMSE comprises items that assess orientation, memory, attention, calculation, language function, comprehension, and judgment abilities, with total scores ranging from 0 to 30. Scores ≥24 indicate normal cognition, scores between 18 and 23 indicate mild cognitive impairment, and scores from 0 to 17 indicate severe cognitive impairment.19)

Tablet-based cognitive assessment

The tablet-based cognitive function assessment consisted of three cognitive tests: the Sternberg Memory Scanning (SMS) task, the Paired Associates Learning (PAL) task, and the SDST. The tablet-based SDST was developed by modifying the original SDST20,21) to evaluate information processing speed. Information processing speed was measured as participants matched specific symbols to corresponding numbers, with the number of correct matches recorded within a 120-second time limit. The tablet-based SMS task was adapted from the original SMS task to assess working memory. In this task, participants were shown random sequences of 3, 5, or 7 digits and were asked to remember them. Working memory was assessed by giving participants 30 trials, with each trial requiring them to select the correct answer within 2 seconds. The tablet-based PAL test was adapted from the original PAL22) to evaluate visual memory. This test involved identifying the positions of squares to measure how quickly and effectively participants acquired and retained new information. Visual memory was assessed as participants were given 15 problems and had 5 seconds to provide an answer for each. The total number of correct answers and the time taken were recorded.

Statistical Analyses

Participants' characteristics were reported using numbers (percentages) for categorical variables and mean±standard deviation for continuous variables. Independent t-tests were used to compare continuous variables between men and women, while chi-square tests were used for categorical variables. Due to non-normal distribution of the variables (as verified by Shapiro-Wilk test), Spearman correlation matrix was used to examine the correlations among muscle mass indices, grip strength, and cognitive function measures.

Binary logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the bidirectional relationship between muscle mass indices, grip strength, and cognitive function performance. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the bidirectional relationship between muscle mass indices, grip strength, and cognitive function performance. Low grip strength was classified using cutoff points of 28 kg for men and 16 kg for women,23) whereas cognitive decline was defined as a K-MMSE score <24. Poor tablet cognitive performance is defined as a score below the median. In addition to analyzing the main effects of exposures (e.g., grip strength, muscle mass indices) on cognitive outcomes, we tested for potential interaction effects between sex and all exposures. Interaction terms (e.g., exposure × sex) were included in logistic regression models to evaluate whether sex acts as an effect modifier. Odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values for interaction terms were estimated. No significant interaction effects were identified, supporting our treatment of sex as a confounding factor in the primary analyses. However, interaction results are presented in Supplementary Tables S1–S3 for completeness.

All regression models were adjusted for potential confounders including age, sex, BMI, body fat percentage, employment status, spousal presence, educational status (high school graduation), and history of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and smoking. Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The study included 335 eligible participants (91 males and 244 females), with a mean age of 77.5±6.1 years. Significant sex differences were observed in several physical characteristics: body fat percentage (male 28.3%±7.5% vs. female 34.4%±6.8%; p<0.001), height (male 165.7±5.8 cm vs. female 152.2±5.6 cm; p<0.001), weight (male 68.1±9.7 kg vs. female 56.4±8.6 kg; p<0.001), grip strength (male 30.5±6.5 kg vs. female 17.6±4.9 kg; p<0.001), LMI (male 14.8±1.4 kg/m² vs. female 16.60±1.6 kg/m²; p<0.001), and SMMI (male 9.5±1.2 kg/m² vs. female 8.3±1.0 kg/m²; p<0.001) (Table 1).

Table 1.

Characteristic of participants (n=335)

Regarding categorical variables, significant sex differences were found in spouse presence (male 76.9% vs. female 36.1%; p<0.001), educational status (p=0.002), diabetes history (male 41.8% vs. female 24.2%; p=0.003), dyslipidemia history (male 28.6% vs. female 42.6%; p=0.026), and smoking status (male 16.5% vs. female 0.4%; p<0.001). Both groups showed similar rates of hypertension history (male 58.2% vs. female 57.8%; p=1.000) and grip strength below cut-points (male 39.6% vs. female 38.9%; p=1.000). Most participants in both groups were unemployed (male 76.9% vs. female 85.7%; p=0.082) and did not show cognitive decline (male 86.8% vs. female 78.3%; p=0.109). (Table 1).

Table 2 presents the Spearman correlation matrix among muscle indices, grip strength, and cognitive functions. Grip strength showed significant moderate correlations with muscle indices (LMI and SMMI) and weak to moderate correlations with all cognitive measures. Both muscle indices were very strongly correlated with each other and showed weak but significant correlations with most cognitive measures. Among cognitive measures, strong correlations were observed between information processing speed, working memory, visual memory, and K-MMSE score.

Table 2.

Spearman correlation matrix for outcomes of LMI, SMMI, grip strength, and cognitive functions

Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the bidirectional relationship between grip strength, muscle mass indices, and cognitive function. Tables 3 and 4 demonstrate the bidirectional relationship between grip strength and cognitive function. After adjusting for potential confounders, participants with grip strength below recommended cut-offs showed significantly higher odds of cognitive decline (OR=2.70, 95% CI 1.38–5.28) and poor performance across all tablet-based cognitive tests (ORs ranging from 2.44 to 2.80; all p<0.05). Similarly, when cognitive function was treated as the predictor, poor cognitive performance was significantly associated with increased odds of low grip strength (ORs ranging from 2.48 to 2.77, all p<0.05). Tables 5 and 6 present the correlations between muscle mass indices (LMI and SMMI) and cognitive function. After adjusting for the same confounders, neither low LMI nor low SMMI showed significant correlations with cognitive decline or tablet-based cognitive performance measures. Similarly, when cognitive function was treated as the predictor, no significant correlations were found with either muscle mass index. All models were adjusted for age, sex, BMI, body fat percentage, employment status, spouse presence, educational status, and history of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and smoking.

Table 3.

Correlations of whether the grip strength below recommended cut-offs and outcomes of cognitive functions (grip strength predicted cognitive functions)

Table 4.

Correlations of cognitive functions and grip strength (cognitive function predicted grip strength)

Table 5.

Correlations between muscle mass indices and cognitive function outcomes, with muscle mass indices predicting cognitive functions

Table 6.

Correlations between cognitive functions and muscle mass indices, with cognitive functions predicting muscle mass indices

DISCUSSION

This study examined the relationship between muscle strength and cognitive function in older adult individuals and highlighted the significant impact of physical functionality on cognitive health. Our findings confirm that grip strength and muscle mass are crucial indicators of cognitive function. Specifically, older adults with lower grip strength had lower K-MMSE scores, indicating a higher risk of cognitive decline. This finding suggests that grip strength is closely associated with overall physical function and plays a vital role in maintaining cognitive health.24)

Grip strength is well-established as a strong predictor of overall health, particularly in the context of aging, where it serves as an indicator of neural function and brain health.25) Our study revealed significant bidirectional correlations between grip strength and cognitive function, as measured by both K-MMSE and tablet-based cognitive assessments. These findings are supported by research showing that muscle activity can influence neuroprotective factors such as BDNF,26) and that muscle-derived myokines (including cathepsin B, FNDC5/irisin, and interleukin-6) play crucial roles in various brain functions such as learning, memory, and mood regulation.27) While some studies have suggested that low muscle mass might contribute to cognitive impairment through inflammatory responses,8) our findings indicate that grip strength—rather than muscle mass alone—may be a more reliable indicator of cognitive health. This suggests that grip strength measurement could serve as a simple yet effective screening tool for early assessment of cognitive health in older adult populations, potentially contributing to earlier intervention in cognitive decline.

Our findings align with previous studies11,28) showing significant correlations between grip strength and cognitive function, but no significant relationships between muscle mass indices and cognitive function. While previous studies primarily examined raw muscle mass values, our study advanced the analysis by incorporating height-adjusted indices (LMI and SMMI) with established cut-points, providing a more standardized assessment of muscle status. Even with these refined measures that account for body size differences, we still found no significant correlations with cognitive function, strengthening the consistency of previous findings.

The consistency across studies, despite our more sophisticated muscle mass measurements, suggests that grip strength may be a more robust indicator of cognitive function than muscle mass indices in older adults, possibly because grip strength reflects not only muscle mass but also muscle function and overall neuromuscular integrity.

The absence of significant relationships between muscle mass indices and cognitive function in both K-MMSE and tablet-based assessments might reflect the complex nature of muscle-brain interactions. While grip strength provides a dynamic measure of neuromuscular function, muscle mass alone—even when standardized for height—may not fully capture the quality and functionality of muscle tissue that could be relevant to cognitive health. Additionally, the difference in assessment methods—K-MMSE involving direct examiner interaction versus tablet-based assessment requiring independent device interaction—provides complementary perspectives on cognitive function, strengthening the reliability of our findings.29)

These results underscore the importance of incorporating grip strength measurements in clinical assessments of older adults, as they may serve as valuable indicators of both physical and cognitive health. Future longitudinal studies are needed to further explore the temporal relationship between these parameters and to determine whether interventions targeting grip strength could effectively contribute to maintaining cognitive function in the aging population.

This study has several limitations. The cross-sectional design inherently limits our ability to establish causal relationships among muscle mass, grip strength, and cognitive function. While we explored the correlations between these variables using logistic regression models with reversed dependent and independent variables, it's crucial to understand that this approach, while demonstrating correlations in both directions, does not provide evidence of causal bidirectionality. As discussed earlier, these observed correlations could be due to confounding factors, reverse causality (where the presumed “outcome” may actually influence the “predictor”), or simply reflect statistical correlations without a direct causal link. Therefore, the observed reciprocal correlations should be interpreted with caution. Future longitudinal studies are needed to determine the true directionality of these relationships and explore the underlying biological mechanisms in greater detail. Such studies, employing methodologies like cross-lagged panel models or intervention designs, would be better suited to disentangle the complex interplay between muscle mass, grip strength, and cognitive function. Additionally, as our sample was representative of an older population, the findings may not be generalizable to younger populations or those with different health conditions. Further research is needed to investigate these relationships in diverse populations.

This study provides further evidence of a strong relationship between muscle health and cognitive function in older individuals. These findings suggest that maintaining muscle mass and strength is crucial for preserving cognitive ability in aging populations. Further research is warranted to explore effective interventions that could mitigate the impact of muscle loss on cognitive decline and to better understand the interconnected pathways linking these two critical aspects of aging.

In conclusion, this study revealed that muscle strength play crucial roles in preserving cognitive function in older adults. Specifically, grip strength were identified as strong predictors of cognitive decline, suggesting that grip strength measurement could serve as a simple yet important tool for assessing cognitive health. Furthermore, maintaining muscle strength and mass through physical activity may prevent or delay cognitive decline. Future research should explore the relationship between muscle strength and cognitive function in greater detail, considering factors such as sex, socioeconomic status, and lifestyle. Longitudinal studies assessing the effect of muscle maintenance programs on cognitive function over time are required.

Notes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The researchers claim no conflicts of interest.

FUNDING

This study was supported by Busan Medi-Bus Project grant by the Busan Metropolitan City.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization, JHP, MJS, TSG, JSL, EM, YAY; Data curation, DRK, TFL; Investigation, DRK; Methodology, JHP, MJS, TSG, JSL; Project administration, EM, YAY; Supervision, EM, YAY; Writing–original draft, DRK; Writing–review & editing, DRK, TFL.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Supplementary materials can be found via https://doi.org/10.4235/agmr.24.0157.

Supplementary Table S1.

Interaction effects of grip strength below recommended cut-offs and gender on cognitive function outcomes

agmr-24-0157-Supplementary-Table-S1.pdf

Supplementary Table S2.

Interaction effects of muscle mass and outcomes of cognitive function (muscle mass indices predicted cognitive functions)

agmr-24-0157-Supplementary-Table-S2.pdf

Supplementary Table S3.

Interaction effects of cognitive functions and muscle mass (cognitive functions predicted muscle mass indices)

agmr-24-0157-Supplementary-Table-S3.pdf

References

1. Umegaki H, Suzuki Y, Komiya H, Watanabe K, Nagae M, Yamada Y. Impact of sarcopenia on decline in quality of life in older people with mild cognitive impairment. J Alzheimers Dis 2022;88:23–7. 10.3233/jad-220123. 35527556.

2. Rosenberg IH. Sarcopenia: origins and clinical relevance. J Nutr 1997;127(5 Suppl):990S–991S. 10.1093/jn/127.5.990s. 9164280.

3. Senior HE, Henwood TR, Beller EM, Mitchell GK, Keogh JW. Prevalence and risk factors of sarcopenia among adults living in nursing homes. Maturitas 2015;82:418–23. 10.1016/j.maturitas.2015.08.006. 26341045.

4. Papadopoulou SK. Sarcopenia: a contemporary health problem among older adult populations. Nutrients 2020;12:1293. 10.3390/nu12051293. 32370051.

5. McKhann GM, Knopman DS, Chertkow H, Hyman BT, Jack CR Jr, Kawas CH, et al. The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2011;7:263–9. 10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.005. 21514250.

6. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders fifth edition (DSM-5) Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013. p. 591–643.

7. Sui SX, Williams LJ, Holloway-Kew KL, Hyde NK, Pasco JA. Skeletal muscle health and cognitive function: a narrative review. Int J Mol Sci 2020;22:255. 10.3390/ijms22010255. 33383820.

8. Oudbier SJ, Goh J, Looijaard SM, Reijnierse EM, Meskers CG, Maier AB. Pathophysiological mechanisms explaining the association between low skeletal muscle mass and cognitive function. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2022;77:1959–68. 10.1093/gerona/glac121. 35661882.

9. Wang Y, Mu D, Wang Y. Association of low muscle mass with cognitive function and mortality in USA seniors: results from NHANES 1999-2002. BMC Geriatr 2024;24:420. 10.1186/s12877-024-05035-9. 38734596.

10. Auyeung TW, Lee JS, Kwok T, Woo J. Physical frailty predicts future cognitive decline: a four-year prospective study in 2737 cognitively normal older adults. J Nutr Health Aging 2011;15:690–4. 10.1007/s12603-011-0110-9. 21968866.

11. Beeri MS, Leugrans SE, Delbono O, Bennett DA, Buchman AS. Sarcopenia is associated with incident Alzheimer’s dementia, mild cognitive impairment, and cognitive decline. J Am Geriatr Soc 2021;69:1826–35. 10.1111/jgs.17206. 33954985.

12. Zha Y, Zhou C, Liao S, Zhan L, He P, Yuan J. Muscle strength performed better than muscle mass in identifying cognitive impairment risk in maintenance hemodialysis patients. Eat Weight Disord 2022;27:2533–40. 10.1007/s40519-022-01375-w. 35389149.

13. Bohannon RW. Grip strength: an indispensable biomarker for older adults. Clin Interv Aging 2019;14:1681–91. 10.2147/cia.s194543. 31631989.

14. McGrath RP. Understanding the feasibility and validity of muscle strength measurements in aging adults. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2019;20:99–100. 10.1016/j.jamda.2018.07.011. 30415892.

15. Bohannon RW. Muscle strength: clinical and prognostic value of hand-grip dynamometry. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2015;18:465–70. 10.1097/mco.0000000000000202. 26147527.

16. Janssen I, Baumgartner RN, Ross R, Rosenberg IH, Roubenoff R. Skeletal muscle cutpoints associated with elevated physical disability risk in older men and women. Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:413–21. 10.1093/aje/kwh058. 14769646.

17. Han SS, Kim KW, Kim KI, Na KY, Chae DW, Kim S, et al. Lean mass index: a better predictor of mortality than body mass index in elderly Asians. J Am Geriatr Soc 2010;58:312–7. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02672.x. 20070416.

18. Kang Y, Na DL, Hahn S. A validity study on the Korean Mini-Mental State Examination (K-MMSE) in dementia patients. J Korean Neurol Assoc 1997;15:300–8.

19. Lee DY, Lee KU, Lee JH, Kim KW, Jhoo JH, Youn JC, et al. A normative study of the Mini-Mental State Examination in the Korean Elderly. J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc 2002;41:508–25.

20. Wechsler D. Wechsler adult intelligence scale manual New York, NY: Psychological Corporation; 1955.

21. Wechsler D. WAIS-R: Wechsler adult intelligence scale-revised New York, NY: Psychological Corporation; 1981.

22. Barnett JH, Blackwell AD, Sahakian BJ, Robbins TW. The Paired Associates Learning (PAL) Test: 30 years of CANTAB translational neuroscience from laboratory to bedside in dementia research. Curr Top Behav Neurosci 2016;28:449–74. 10.1007/7854_2015_5001. 27646012.

23. Dodds RM, Syddall HE, Cooper R, Kuh D, Cooper C, Sayer AA. Global variation in grip strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis of normative data. Age Ageing 2016;45:209–16. 10.1093/ageing/afv192. 26790455.

24. Shaughnessy KA, Hackney KJ, Clark BC, Kraemer WJ, Terbizan DJ, Bailey RR, et al. A narrative review of handgrip strength and cognitive functioning: bringing a new characteristic to muscle memory. J Alzheimers Dis 2020;73:1265–78. 10.3233/jad-190856. 31929158.

25. Carson RG. Get a grip: individual variations in grip strength are a marker of brain health. Neurobiol Aging 2018;71:189–222. 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2018.07.023. 30172220.

26. Maderova D, Krumpolec P, Slobodova L, Schon M, Tirpakova V, Kovanicova Z, et al. Acute and regular exercise distinctly modulate serum, plasma and skeletal muscle BDNF in the elderly. Neuropeptides 2019;78:101961. 10.1016/j.npep.2019.101961. 31506171.

27. Isaac AR, Lima-Filho RA, Lourenco MV. How does the skeletal muscle communicate with the brain in health and disease? Neuropharmacology 2021;197:108744. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2021.108744. 34363812.

28. Tou NX, Wee SL, Pang BW, Lau LK, Jabbar KA, Seah WT, et al. Associations of fat mass and muscle function but not lean mass with cognitive impairment: the Yishun Study. PLoS One 2021;16e0256702. 10.1371/journal.pone.0256702. 34437646.

29. Pinto-Bruno AC, Garcia-Casal JA, Csipke E, Jenaro-Rio C, Franco-Martin M. ICT-based applications to improve social health and social participation in older adults with dementia: a systematic literature review. Aging Ment Health 2017;21:58–65. 10.1080/13607863.2016.1262818. 27936876.

Article information Continued

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Variable	Overall (n=335)	Male (n=91)	Female (n=244)	p-value
Demographic characteristics
Age (y)	77.5±6.1	77.6±5.8	77.5±6.2	0.877
Body fat percentage (%)	32.8±7.5	28.3±7.5	34.4±6.8	<0.001
BMI (kg/m²)	24.4±3.2	24.7±3.0	24.3±3.3	0.312
Height (cm)	155.9±8.2	165.7±5.8	152.2±5.6	<0.001
Weight (kg)	59.5±10.3	68.1±9.7	56.4±8.6	<0.001
Working memory (counts)	17.8±9.5	19.1±8.8	17.3±9.8	0.131
Information processing speed (counts)	35.2±17.9	38.1±16.7	34.1±18.3	0.073
Visual memory (counts)	14.4±13.3	15.2±12.7	14.2±13.5	0.531
Visual memory time (s)	282.6±181.7	303.7±173.5	274.7±184.4	0.195
K-MMSE score	26.0±3.4	26.7±2.6	25.8±3.6	0.026
Grip strength (kg)	21.1±7.9	30.5±6.5	17.6±4.9	<0.001
LMI (kg/m²)	37.5±6.9	14.8±1.4	16.60±1.6	<0.001
SMMI (kg/m²)	21.2±4.5	9.5±1.2	8.3±1.0	<0.001
Categorical variables
Employment status, yes	56 (16.7)	21 (23.1)	35 (14.3)	0.082
Spouse presence, yes	158 (47.2)	70 (76.9)	88 (36.1)	<0.001
Educational status				0.002
Elementary school	173 (51.6)	33 (36.3)	140 (57.4)
Middle school	80 (23.9)	28 (30.8)	52 (21.3)
High school	65 (19.4)	24 (26.4)	41 (16.8)
Bachelor/College	15 (4.5)	4 (4.4)	11 (4.5)
Graduate school	2 (0.6)	2 (2.2)	0 (0)
Diabetes history, yes	97 (29.0)	38 (41.8)	59 (24.2)	0.003
Hypertension history, yes	194 (57.9)	53 (58.2)	141 (57.8)	1.000
Dyslipidemia history, yes	130 (38.8)	26 (28.6)	104 (42.6)	0.026
Smoking status, yes	16 (4.8)	15 (16.5)	1 (0.4)	<0.001
Cognitive decline, yes	65 (19.4)	12 (13.2)	53 (21.7)	0.109
Grip strength below cut-points, yes	131 (39.1)	36 (39.6)	95 (38.9)	1.000
LMI below cut-points, yes	111 (33.1)	7 (7.7)	104 (42.6)	<0.001
SMMI below cut-points, yes	83 (24.8)	78 (85.7)	5 (2.0)	<0.001

	Grip strength	LMI	SMMI	K-MMSE score	Information processing speed	Working memory	Visual memory	Visual memory time
Grip strength	N/A	0.519^*	0.567^*	0.281^*	0.335^*	0.331^*	0.281^*	0.258^*
Lean muscle mass	0.519^*	N/A	0.990^*	0.111^*	0.117^*	0.120^*	0.075	0.046
Skeletal muscle mass	0.567^*	0.990^*	N/A	0.155^*	0.167^*	0.168^*	0.116^*	0.080
K-MMSE score	0.281^*	0.111^*	0.155^*	N/A	0.571^*	0.568^*	0.535^*	0.410^*
Information processing speed	0.335^*	0.117^*	0.167^*	0.571^*	N/A	0.748^*	0.687^*	0.522^*
Working memory	0.331^*	0.120^*	0.168^*	0.568^*	0.748^*	N/A	0.747^*	0.592^*
Visual memory	0.281^*	0.075	0.116^*	0.535^*	0.687^*	0.747^*	N/A	0.766^*
Visual memory time	0.258^*	0.046	0.080	0.410^*	0.522^*	0.592^*	0.766^*	N/A

Outcomes	Grip strength below recommended cut-offs	OR (95% CI)	p-value
Cognitive decline	No	Ref
Cognitive decline	Yes	2.70 (1.38–5.28)	0.004^*
Information processing speed^a)	No	Ref
Information processing speed^a)	Yes	2.65 (1.49–4.78)	0.001^*
Working memory^a)	No	Ref
Working memory^a)	Yes	2.44 (1.39–4.32)	0.002^*
Visual memory^a)	No	Ref
Visual memory^a)	Yes	2.51 (1.45–4.38)	0.001^*
Visual memory time^a)	No	Ref
Visual memory time^a)	Yes	2.80 (1.63–4.89)	<0.001^*

Cognitive functions	OR (95% CI) for grip strength lower than recommended cut-offs	p-value
Cognitive decline	2.77 (1.41–5.43)	0.003^*
Information processing speed^a)	2.69 (1.52–4.81)	0.001^*
Working memory^a)	2.51 (1.43–4.46)	0.001^*
Visual memory^a)	2.48 (1.44–4.29)	0.001^*
Visual memory time^a)	2.65 (1.55–4.58)	<0.001^*

Outcomes	Low LMI		Low SMMI
Outcomes	OR (95% CI)	p-value	OR (95% CI)	p-value
Cognitive decline	1.01 (0.56–1.81)	0.981	0.48 (0.06–3.27)	0.451
Information processing speed^a)	0.70 (0.35–1.36)	0.298	2.67 (0.71–11.91)	0.167
Working memory^a)	1.55 (0.81–2.98)	0.190	1.79 (0.52–6.57)	0.363
Visual memory^a)	0.95 (0.51–1.77)	0.881	1.55 (0.47–5.47)	0.474
Visual memory time^a)	0.77 (0.42–1.40)	0.395	1.69 (0.52–6.14)	0.397

Cognitive functions	Low LMI		Low SMMI
Cognitive functions	B (95 % CI)	p-value	B (95 % CI)	p-value
Cognitive decline	0.91 (0.48–1.70)	0.769	0.95 (0.25–3.75)	0.939
Information processing speed^a)	0.68 (0.34–1.35)	0.273	2.33 (0.48–14.37)	0.318
Working memory^a)	1.37 (0.71–2.66)	0.355	3.14 (0.67–18.24)	0.167
Visual memory^a)	0.86 (0.45–1.63)	0.638	1.48 (0.38–6.48)	0.584
Visual memory time^a)	0.65 (0.34–1.23)	0.191	1.52 (0.40–6.77)	0.553