ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2026
Dual-scale assessment of motor dysfunction in older adults with locomotor dysfunction and its association with gait and muscle activation.
Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study examined the reliability and validity of a combined 25-question geriatric locomotive function scale (GLFS-25) and Locomotion Dysfunction Grade scale (LDG) classification protocol in older adults with locomotor dysfunction, and explored which objective gait and muscle activation parameters were most strongly associated with GLFS-25 scores. Methods: The GLFS-25 and LDG were used to assess 289 older adults with locomotor dysfunction, of whom 60 underwent gait analysis and surface electromyography (sEMG). Results: Reliability analysis yielded a Cronbach's α of 0.702 for the GLFS-25, indicating acceptable but modest internal consistency. Exploratory factor analysis extracted nine factors, accounting for 55.193% of the cumulative variance. Confirmatory factor analysis showed X Conclusion: The GLFS-25 demonstrated acceptable but modest reliability and partial construct validity in this population. In exploratory analyses, its scores showed a strong in-sample association with objective gait and sEMG measures. These findings are hypothesis-generating and require external validation in independent cohorts. Objective measures remain complementary to, rather than substitutes for, subjective assessment. Registration: ChiCTR2400087701.
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.