Home › Research › Disparities
Determinants of fractal motor activity regulation: insights from a large community-dwelling multi-ethnic population
Hammad G, Seret E, Schmidt C, Vandewalle G.. Research Square, 2026-07-06
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Plain-language summary
We found opposite effects of age on FMAR at both short and long time scales, respectively (ßAge=0.014, 95% C.I. [0.009,0.019] and ßAge=-0.015, 95% C.I. [-0.026,-0.005]), as well as differences between women and men at long time scales (ßSexMen=+0.028, 95% C.I. [0.012,0.044]). We also confirmed that higher activity levels were linked to less degraded FMAR (ßMDA=0.007, 95% C.I. [0.003,0.011] at short time scales and ßMDA=0.032, 95% C.I. [0.024,0.041] at long time scales). Finally, we observed that Black and Hispanic participants, as well as Asian participants, exhibiting lower values in scaling exponents at short and long time scales, respectively (ßBlack=-0.026, 95% C.I. [-0.035,-0.017], ßHispanic=-0.018, 95% C.I. [-0.027,-0.009] and ßAsian=-0.065, 95% C.I. [-0.091,-0.039]), compared to White participants. Using a large multi-ethnic cross-sectional dataset, our analysis provided support and clarified the interaction effect of age and sex on FMAR. It also confirmed, in humans, the influence of activity levels on FMAR observed in rodents and demonstrated for the first time that FMAR alterations are modulated by race and ethnicity.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Hammad, G., Seret, E., Schmidt, C., & Vandewalle, G. (2026). Determinants of fractal motor activity regulation: insights from a large community-dwelling multi-ethnic population. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10237495/v1
Vancouver
Hammad G, Seret E, Schmidt C, Vandewalle G. Determinants of fractal motor activity regulation: insights from a large community-dwelling multi-ethnic population. Research Square. 2026. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10237495/v1.
BibTeX
@article{hammad2026-0b0753c5,
author = {Hammad, G. and Seret, E. and Schmidt, C. and Vandewalle, G.},
title = {{Determinants of fractal motor activity regulation: insights from a large community-dwelling multi-ethnic population}},
journal = {Research Square},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.21203/rs.3.rs-10237495/v1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10237495/v1}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- We found opposite effects of age on FMAR at both short and long time scales, respectively (ßAge=0.014, 95% C.I. [0.009,0.019] and ßAge=-0.015, 95% C.I. [-0.026,-0.005]), as well as differences between women and men at long time scales (ßSexMen=+0.028, 95% C.I. [0.012,0.044]).
- We also confirmed that higher activity levels were linked to less degraded FMAR (ßMDA=0.007, 95% C.I. [0.003,0.011] at short time scales and ßMDA=0.032, 95% C.I. [0.024,0.041] at long time scales).
- Finally, we observed that Black and Hispanic participants, as well as Asian participants, exhibiting lower values in scaling exponents at short and long time scales, respectively (ßBlack=-0.026, 95% C.I. [-0.035,-0.017], ßHispanic=-0.018, 95% C.I. [-0.027,-0.009] and ßAsian=-0.065, 95% C.I. [-0.091,-0.039]), compared to White participants.
- Using a large multi-ethnic cross-sectional dataset, our analysis provided support and clarified the interaction effect of age and sex on FMAR.
- It also confirmed, in humans, the influence of activity levels on FMAR observed in rodents and demonstrated for the first time that FMAR alterations are modulated by race and ethnicity.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 31 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 19 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 31 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Research Square) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 19 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 19 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 31 out of 100. |
| Total | 31 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Disparities from nearby years
Also tagged “networks”
187 studies in the library carry the topic tag “networks”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 187 tagged studies.