Has Muscle Power Better Discriminative Capacity Compared To Muscle Strength In Predicting Worsening Disability In Older Adults?

Silvia Travaglini, Maria Bonvicini, Stefania Bandinelli, Luigi Ferrucci, Raffaele Antonelli Incalzi, Claudio Pedone
{"title":"Has Muscle Power Better Discriminative Capacity Compared To Muscle Strength In Predicting Worsening Disability In Older Adults?","authors":"Silvia Travaglini, Maria Bonvicini, Stefania Bandinelli, Luigi Ferrucci, Raffaele Antonelli Incalzi, Claudio Pedone","doi":"10.1093/gerona/glaf003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Poor muscle strength is a risk factor for disability; nonetheless its discriminative capacity in identifying people who will become disabled is poor. We evaluated whether muscle power, which also is a risk factor for disability, has better discriminative capacity compared to muscle strength.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used data from the population based InCHIANTI study. Our outcome measure was the loss of at least one basic or instrumental activity of daily living between baseline and 3-years follow-up visit. Body weight standardized knee isometric strength and leg power (power rig) were used as exposure variables. Discriminative capacity was estimated using the area under the receiver operating curves (ROC). Both strength and power were dichotomized as below versus equal of above sex-specific first quartile. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 763 participants (415 women), with a mean age of 73.5 years (SD 6.4).In men, using muscle strength we obtained an AUC of 0.70, with sensitivity=0.45, specificity=0.80, PPV=0.27, and NPV=0.90; using muscle power we obtained an AUC of 0.82, sensitivity=0.73, specificity=0.86, PPV=0.46, and NPV=0.95.In women, using muscle strength we obtained an AUC of 0.62, with sensitivity=0.39, specificity=0.81, PPV=0.39, and NPV=0.81; using muscle power we obtained an AUC=0.69, sensitivity=0.40, specificity=0.83, PPV=0.42, and NPV=0.82.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found that in men muscle power had better discriminative capacity, especially higher sensitivity, compared to muscle strength for prediction of worsening disability. No meaningful difference in overall discriminative capacity were found in women.</p>","PeriodicalId":94243,"journal":{"name":"The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glaf003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Poor muscle strength is a risk factor for disability; nonetheless its discriminative capacity in identifying people who will become disabled is poor. We evaluated whether muscle power, which also is a risk factor for disability, has better discriminative capacity compared to muscle strength.

Methods: We used data from the population based InCHIANTI study. Our outcome measure was the loss of at least one basic or instrumental activity of daily living between baseline and 3-years follow-up visit. Body weight standardized knee isometric strength and leg power (power rig) were used as exposure variables. Discriminative capacity was estimated using the area under the receiver operating curves (ROC). Both strength and power were dichotomized as below versus equal of above sex-specific first quartile. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were calculated.

Results: We included 763 participants (415 women), with a mean age of 73.5 years (SD 6.4).In men, using muscle strength we obtained an AUC of 0.70, with sensitivity=0.45, specificity=0.80, PPV=0.27, and NPV=0.90; using muscle power we obtained an AUC of 0.82, sensitivity=0.73, specificity=0.86, PPV=0.46, and NPV=0.95.In women, using muscle strength we obtained an AUC of 0.62, with sensitivity=0.39, specificity=0.81, PPV=0.39, and NPV=0.81; using muscle power we obtained an AUC=0.69, sensitivity=0.40, specificity=0.83, PPV=0.42, and NPV=0.82.

Conclusions: We found that in men muscle power had better discriminative capacity, especially higher sensitivity, compared to muscle strength for prediction of worsening disability. No meaningful difference in overall discriminative capacity were found in women.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在预测老年人残疾恶化方面,肌肉力量比肌肉力量有更好的判别能力吗?
背景:肌肉力量不足是致残的危险因素;尽管如此,它鉴别将成为残疾人的人的能力很差。我们评估了肌肉力量(也是残疾的危险因素)是否比肌肉力量具有更好的辨别能力。方法:我们使用基于人群的InCHIANTI研究数据。我们的结果测量是在基线和3年随访期间至少失去一项基本或辅助的日常生活活动。以体重、标准化膝关节等长力量和腿部力量作为暴露变量。判别能力用受试者工作曲线下面积(ROC)估计。强度和功率均被二分类为低于或等于以上性别特定的第一四分位数。计算敏感性、特异性和阳性/阴性预测值(PPV、NPV)。结果:我们纳入了763名参与者(415名女性),平均年龄为73.5岁(SD 6.4)。在男性中,使用肌肉力量,我们获得了0.70的AUC,敏感性=0.45,特异性=0.80,PPV=0.27, NPV=0.90;使用肌力,我们得到AUC为0.82,灵敏度=0.73,特异性=0.86,PPV=0.46, NPV=0.95。在女性中,使用肌肉力量,我们获得了0.62的AUC,敏感性=0.39,特异性=0.81,PPV=0.39, NPV=0.81;使用肌力,我们得到AUC=0.69,灵敏度=0.40,特异性=0.83,PPV=0.42, NPV=0.82。结论:我们发现,与肌肉力量相比,男性肌肉力量在预测残疾恶化方面具有更好的判别能力,特别是更高的敏感性。在女性的总体判别能力上没有发现有意义的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Study in Murine Model: Is There a Relationship Between Presbycusis and Frailty? Protein Translation Rates Are Negatively Correlated With Lifespan in Inbred Drosophila Strains. Examining the Relationship Between Weekend Catch-Up Sleep and Phenotypic Age Acceleration: Insights From a Cross-Sectional Study. The Fifth Annual Symposium of the Midwest Aging Consortium. Cardiometabolic Multimorbidity and Dementia Onset among Middle-aged and Older Adults: Differences by Race/Ethnicity.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1