ArticleThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2022
Difference between "Physical Fitness Age" Based on Physical Function and Chronological Age Is Associated with Obesity, Hyperglycemia, Depressive Symptoms, and Low Serum Albumin.
Article in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physician Age and Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Latent profiles of body composition in older adults with hypertension: associations with physical fitness and differences in blood pressure and fasting plasma glucose.Physical activity and nutrition · 2026Article
- Molecular markers, mechanisms and metrics of biological aging: a scoping review.Frontiers in aging · 2026Review
- Role of Peptides in Skeletal Muscle Wasting: A Scoping Review.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a predictive model for postoperative metastasis of upper tract urothelial carcinoma after radical nephroureterectomy and analysis of risk factors for different metastatic sites: a multicenter study.International urology and nephrology · 2025Article
- Introduction of AI Technology for Objective Physical Function Assessment.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- A study on the development of a fitness age prediction model: the national fitness award cohort study 2017-2021.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Cognitive and physical age gaps in relation to mild cognitive impairment and behavioral phenotypes.GeroScience · 2024Article
- Association between neutrophil-to-albumin ratio and long-term mortality of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.BMC neurology · 2023Observational
- Preoperative low absolute and relative handgrip strength as predictors of postoperative short-term outcomes: a prospective study based on patients aged 60 years and older with gastric cancer.European geriatric medicine · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to (1) develop the physical fitness age, which is the biological age based on physical function, (2) evaluate the validity of the physical fitness age for the assessment of sarcopenia, and (3) examine the factors associated with the difference between physical fitness age and chronological age.
designCross-sectional study. SETTING AND
participantsCommunity-dwelling older adults and outpatients. MEASUREMENTS: A formula for calculating the physical fitness age was created based on the usual walking speed, handgrip strength, one-leg standing time, and chronological age of 4,076 older adults from the pooled data of community-dwelling and outpatients using the principal component analysis. For the validation of the physical fitness age, we also used pooled data from community-dwelling older adults (n = 1929) and outpatients (n = 473). Sarcopenia was diagnosed according to the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2019 consensus. The association of D-age (the difference between physical and chronological ages) with cardiovascular risk factors, renal function, and cardiac function was examined.
resultsThe receiver operating characteristic analysis, with sarcopenia as the outcome, showed that the area under the curve (AUC) of physical fitness age was greater than that of chronological age (AUC 0.87 and 0.77, respectively, p < 0.001). Binomial logistic regression analysis revealed that the D-age was significantly associated with sarcopenia after adjustment for covariates (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.19-1.26; p <0.001). In multivariate linear regression analysis with D-age as the dependent variable, D-age was independently associated with a history of diabetes mellitus (or hemoglobin A1c as a continuous variable), obesity, depression, and low serum albumin level. D-age was also correlated with estimated glomerular filtration rate derived from serum cystatin C, brain natriuretic peptide, and ankle-brachial index, reflecting some organ function and arteriosclerosis.
conclusionsCompared to chronological age, physical fitness age calculated from handgrip strength, one-leg standing time, and usual walking speed was a better scale for sarcopenia. D-age, which could be a simple indicator of physical function, was associated with modifiable factors, such as poor glycemic control, obesity, depressive symptoms, and malnutrition.
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.