Observational studyFrontiers in public health2026
Predicting low muscle strength from routine fitness-monitoring data in hypertensive older adults living at high altitude: development and internal validation of interpretable models.
Observational study in Frontiers in public health, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Low muscle strength based on grip-strength thresholds is a readily measurable marker of impaired muscle function, yet it is under-recognized among hypertensive older adults at high altitude. We developed a concurrent clinical prediction model using routine fitness-monitoring data and tested whether the full feature set added information beyond sex, age, and site/altitude. Methods: This cross-sectional secondary analysis included 433 hypertensive adults aged 60-69 years from three sites in the National Physical Fitness Monitoring program in the Tibet Autonomous Region. Low muscle strength was defined using Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2019 grip-strength thresholds (men <28 kg; women <18 kg). Fifteen predictors were prespecified for routine availability and plausible relevance to body composition, cardiometabolic status, respiratory or neuromotor function, physical activity, and site/altitude. Elastic-net logistic regression, random forest, and histogram gradient boosting were evaluated by repeated nested cross-validation. Results: Low muscle strength was present in 171/433 participants (39.5%). Random forest had the highest AUC point estimate (0.788, 95% CI 0.742-0.831), but its interval overlapped with elastic-net logistic regression (0.781, 0.732-0.825) and histogram gradient boosting (0.774, 0.729-0.819). Elastic-net was designated as the candidate model because calibration was closest to ideal (slope 0.99, 95% CI 0.78-1.24; intercept -0.00, -0.22 to 0.24) and it provides a transportable equation. Its PR-AUC was 0.725 versus a no-skill baseline of 0.395. Incremental discrimination over sex plus age plus site/altitude was small (ΔAUC 0.016, 95% CI - 0.009 to 0.041). AUC was 0.705 without sex, 0.653 under a sex-specific tertile outcome, and 0.626-0.759 when each site was held out. Conclusion: Routine fitness-monitoring variables contain information about concurrent low muscle strength, but much of the apparent performance is explained by the sex-specific outcome definition and site/altitude structure. Direct grip-strength measurement remains preferable whenever feasible. The elastic-net model should be regarded only as a candidate for opportunistic triage when a valid grip measurement is unavailable or unusable; independent external validation, recalibration, and prospective impact evaluation are required before implementation.
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.