ArticleThe journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences2025
Has Muscle Power Better Discriminative Capacity Compared to Muscle Strength in Predicting Worsening Disability in Older Adults?
Article in The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPoor muscle strength is a risk factor for disability; nonetheless, its discriminative capacity in identifying people who will become disabled is poor. We evaluated whether muscle power, which also is a risk factor for disability, has better discriminative capacity compared to muscle strength.
methodsWe used data from the population-based InCHIANTI study. Our outcome measure was the loss of at least 1 basic or instrumental activity of daily living between baseline and 3-year follow-up visit. Body weight standardized knee isometric strength and leg power (power rig) were used as exposure variables. Discriminative capacity was estimated using the area under the receiver-operating curves. Both strength and power were dichotomized as below versus equal of above sex-specific first quartile. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were calculated.
resultsWe included 763 participants (415 women), with a mean age of 73.5 years (standard deviation: 6.4). In men, using muscle strength we obtained an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.70, with sensitivity = 0.45, specificity = 0.80, PPV = 0.27, and NPV = 0.90; using muscle power we obtained an AUC of 0.82, sensitivity = 0.73, specificity = 0.86, PPV = 0.46, and NPV = 0.95. In women, using muscle strength we obtained an AUC of 0.62, with sensitivity = 0.39, specificity = 0.81, PPV = 0.39, and NPV = 0.81; using muscle power we obtained an AUC = 0.69, sensitivity = 0.40, specificity = 0.83, PPV = 0.42, and NPV = 0.82.
conclusionsWe found that in men muscle power had better discriminative capacity, especially higher sensitivity, compared to muscle strength for prediction of worsening disability. No meaningful difference in overall discriminative capacity was found in women.
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.