Key numbers
0.41
Adjusted hazard ratio, 8-foot up-and-go, highest versus lowest fifth (Wu 2026; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.51)
0.39
Adjusted hazard ratio, composite fitness index, highest versus lowest (Wu 2026; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.48)
2.87
Summary hazard ratio, slowest versus fastest quarter of walking speed (Cooper 2010)
2.14
Odds ratio, total SPPB 4-6 versus 10-12 (Pavasini 2016; 95% CI 1.92 to 2.39)
A large cohort of older adults in Taiwan
Wu and colleagues (2026) tested community-dwelling adults aged 65 or older in Taiwan with seven fitness tests covering four areas (cardiorespiratory fitness, muscular strength, flexibility, and balance and agility). The mean age was 72.9 years. During follow-up, 1,631 participants (12.2 percent) died.
For four of the tests, the people in the top fifth had lower all-cause mortality than those in the bottom fifth after adjustment. The adjusted hazard ratios were 0.41 (95 percent CI 0.33 to 0.51) for the 8-foot up-and-go, 0.50 (95 percent CI 0.42 to 0.59) for standing on one leg, 0.55 (95 percent CI 0.46 to 0.65) for the 30-second chair stand and 0.58 (95 percent CI 0.49 to 0.68) for the 2-minute step test.
The researchers also combined all seven tests into one fitness index, built from sex-specific percentile ranks. People with the highest index had the lowest risk, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.39 (95 percent CI 0.32 to 0.48) compared with the lowest. That does not mean every one of the seven tests tracked mortality on its own.
What two meta-analyses found
Cooper and colleagues (2010) pooled observational studies of community-dwelling people that looked at grip strength, walking speed, chair rises or standing balance, each measured separately. Comparing the slowest with the fastest quarter of walking speed, the summary hazard ratio for mortality was 2.87 (95 percent confidence interval 2.22 to 3.72), from five studies with 14,692 participants. The grip strength association was also seen in younger groups, with five studies having an average age under 60 years.
Pavasini and colleagues (2016) looked at the total score of the Short Physical Performance Battery, which combines balance, walking and chair-rise tasks. Across 17 pooled studies with a mean participant age of 76 ± 3 years, a score of 4-6 was associated with higher all-cause mortality than a score of 10-12, with an odds ratio of 2.14 (95%CI 1.92-2.39) adjusted for age, sex and BMI. That result is for the battery's total score, not for any single task in it.
What this does not show
Every result here is an association in a group of people followed over time. It does not show that better performance causes a longer life. None of these studies tested the Systematic assessment, so they are background evidence about physical capability in general, and a Systematic score is not a personal mortality estimate.
The evidence
Each cited source is labeled according to how it supports the particular claim on this page. Direct test evidence, underlying-capacity findings and population reference values are distinguished from Systematic-defined protocols and standards. Historical development notes are retained internally rather than presented as public evidence. A study of an underlying capacity is never presented as validation of the Systematic test itself.
-
Underlying-capacity evidence New source
Wu et al. (2026). Physical Fitness and All-Cause Mortality in Older Adults. JAMA network open.
What it found. Among community-dwelling Taiwanese adults aged 65 or older, the top fifth on the up-and-go, one-leg stance, chair stand and 2-minute step had lower all-cause mortality than the bottom fifth, and the highest composite fitness index had the lowest risk.
What it does not show. It does not show that all seven tests tracked mortality, or that the composite validates Systematic's different set of tests.
-
Underlying-capacity evidence New source
Pavasini et al. (2016). Short Physical Performance Battery and all-cause mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC medicine.
What it found. Lower Short Physical Performance Battery total scores were associated with higher all-cause mortality: a score of 4-6 versus 10-12 had an odds ratio of 2.14 (95%CI 1.92-2.39).
What it does not show. It evaluates the battery's total score, not a single chair stand, and not any Systematic test.
-
Underlying-capacity evidence New source
Cooper et al. (2010). Objectively measured physical capability levels and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ (Clinical research ed.).
What it found. In community-dwelling populations, the slowest quarter of walking speed had a summary hazard ratio for mortality of 2.87 compared with the fastest quarter, and the grip strength association was also seen in younger groups.
What it does not show. It does not validate the eight-test Systematic assessment or give a clinical cutoff for it.
The Systematic Healthspan Assessment is a physical baseline. It is not a diagnosis, and it does not estimate a biological age, a disease risk or a lifespan.