While the correlation here turns grip strength into a useful diagnostic sign to stratify patients into risk groups for possible intervention (assistive devices

While the correlation here turns grip strength into a useful diagnostic sign to stratify patients into risk groups for possible intervention (assistive devices etc.) the authors go on to advise the reader on improving their grip strength, on the implied hypothesis that doing so will reduce the adverse outcomes enumerated earlier in the article. Possibly the effectiveness of that sort of intervention is already know but the whiff of “correlation != causation” for me was only around that question. Possibly that too is already known; I don’t know that literature. But the authors don’t draw that connection and therefore leave the question of correlation and causation open at least from the perspective of their recommended interventions.