The Stair Climb Power Test as an Efficacy Outcome in Randomized Trials of Function Promoting Therapies in Older Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Standardization of performance-based physical function measures that are reliable and responsive to intervention is necessary for efficacy trials of function promoting anabolic therapies (FPTs). Herein, we describe a standardized method of measuring stair climbing power (SCP) and evaluate its ability to assess improvements in physical function in response to an FPT (testosterone) compared to gait speed. METHODS: We used a 12-step SCP test with and without carrying a load (loaded, LSCP or unloaded, USCP) in two testosterone trials in older men. SCP was determined from mass, total step-rise, and time of ascent measured with an electronic timing system. Associations between SCP and leg press performance (strength and power), testosterone levels, and gait speed were assessed. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using interclass correlation and Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: Baseline SCP was negatively associated with age and positively with leg strength and power and gait speed. Both tests of SCP were safe and showed excellent reliability (intra-class correlation 0.91-0.97 in both cohorts). Changes in testosterone concentrations were associated with changes in USCP and LSCP, but not gait speed in mobility-limited men. Changes in leg press performance were associated with SCP in both trials. CONCLUSIONS: Both USCP and LSCP are safe and have high test-retest reliability. Compared to gait speed, SCP is associated more robustly with leg press performance and is sensitive to testosterone therapy. The LSCP might be a more responsive outcome than gait speed to evaluate the efficacy of FPT in randomized trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".