ArticleScientific reports2025
Defining the concept of physical resilience and quantifying recovery during standing balance in middle-aged and older adults.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cross-talk between aging resilience pathways and autoimmunity onset.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- From frailty to resilience: exploring adaptive capacity and reserve in older adults-a narrative review.Frontiers in aging · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physical resilience is the ability to recover from an external perturbation, an integral aspect of functional adaptability and healthy behavior. Techniques that quantify behavior over multiple time scales offer a solution to quantifying resilience. As people age, they tend to lose functional adaptability and resilience. However, age-related declines in resilience between middle-aged and older adults is unclear. This study compared the difference in the ability to recover to baseline following standing balance perturbations between middle-aged and older adults, and between those that do or do not recover to baseline. Thirty-eight middle-aged and thirty-one older adults stood on a force platform during five, 60-sec trials. The platform moved posteriorly a specified distance during each trial (2.54 to 12.7 cm). Detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA) was calculated on anteroposterior center of pressure with moving windows of five seconds. Baseline DFA alpha (BA) was obtained by averaging windows before the perturbation. Directly after the perturbation, windows were analyzed until the DFA recovered within a set criterion of BA, called recovery Alpha (RA). If DFA didn't meet the criterion, DFA of the last window was taken as the RA. Trials were coded as recovery and non-recovery. There was a significant interaction between age and Recover or No recovery on RA. Older adult non-recoverers had a significantly lower RA than middle-aged adults and older adult recoverers. Older adults who did not recover to baseline exhibited less persistent sway, evidenced by decreases in RA. Older adult non-recoverers demonstrating decreased DFA indicates decreased resilience.
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.