ArticleBiosensors2025
Kinematic Biomarkers of Functional Disability in Older Adults: Analysis of the Timed Up and Go Test.
Article in Biosensors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effectiveness of nudge-based physical activity interventions in frail older adults: a systematic review.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2026Pooled it
- Instrumented Timed Up and Go Analysis Identifies Biomechanical Markers Across Early Hoehn and Yahr Stages of Parkinson's Disease.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Personalizing fall fear prevention in knee osteoarthritis: an interpretable prediction framework via IGKSO synchronous optimization and SHAP-based risk stratification.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
Abstract
The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test is used to assess mobility in older adults, but its reliance on completion time limits its insight into detailed movement patterns that could serve as early indicators of functional decline. This study aimed to identify lower limb and trunk kinematic biomarkers during the TUG test that distinguish between older adults with and without functional disability, emphasizing the potential for wearable sensor applications. Sixty adults aged 60+ participated in this cross-sectional study. Three-dimensional lower limb and trunk range of motion (ROM), velocity, center of mass (CoM) displacement, and velocity were analyzed using an optoelectronic system across TUG subphases: sit-to-walk, walk-forward, turn, walk-back, and turn-to-sit. Principal component analysis identified eleven principal components (PCs), explaining 84.33% of the total variance. PCs included sagittal hip and knee motion and CoM velocity during turn-to-sit and walking (PC1); tri-dimensional trunk velocity during turning, walk-back, and sit-to-walk transitions (PC2, PC4, PC6); sagittal knee and hip velocity in sit-to-walk (PC3); and frontal and transverse plane knee ROM and velocity during turning (PC5). Significant differences between functional disability groups were found for PC1 and PC4. These findings provide benchmark data for developing and validating wearable biosensors aimed at monitoring kinematic biomarkers.
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.