ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Association of Cut-Point Free Metrics and Common Clinical Tests Among Older Adults After Proximal Femoral Fracture.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Wearable and lightweight devices facilitate real-world physical activity (PA) assessments. MX metrics, as a cut-point-free parameter, evaluate acceleration above which the most active X minutes are accumulated. It provides insights into the intensity of PA over specific durations. This study evaluated the association of MX metrics and clinical tests in older adults recovering from proximal femoral fracture (PFF). Analyses were conducted on the PFF cohort from the baseline assessment of the Mobilise-D project using an accelerometer-based device. Participants (N = 396) were categorized into four recovery groups: acute, post-acute, extended recovery, and long-term recovery. Mobility capacity was assessed through the 6 min walking test (6MinWT), Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), 4-m walking test (4MWT), and hand grip (HG) strength. Mobility perception was evaluated using the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI). Eight MX metrics (M1-M90) were calculated using the GGIR package in R. Results showed a moderate to strong positive correlation between M1 and M30 and lower limb mobility capacity tests and mobility perception (Lower Extremity domains) particularly in the extended and long-term recovery groups. MX metrics can be used for measuring PA intensity among older adults recovering from PFF. Hence, MX metrics have a high potential for clinical use as personalized PA targets in PFF rehabilitation.
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.