MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1490104269 · doi:10.1159/000319997

Sarcopenia: Prevalence, Mechanisms, and Functional Consequences

2010· review· en· W1490104269 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Berger, Timothy J. Doherty

Bibliographic record

VenueInterdisciplinary topics in gerontology and geriatrics · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSarcopeniaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMuscle massWeaknessMuscle strengthMuscle powerMedicinePopulationMuscle weaknessInternal medicineAnatomyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aging is associated with significant decline in neuromuscular function and performance. Sarcopenia, often defined as age-related loss of muscle mass, strength, and functional decline, is the most characteristic feature of age-related changes in the neuromuscular system. Strength decline in upper and lower limb muscles is typically 20-40% by the 7th decade and greater in older adults. This is accompanied by similar losses of limb muscle cross-sectional area. Whole body or appendicular muscle mass determination has become the method of choice for defining sarcopenia. Large population studies have reported that sarcopenia affects over 20% of 60- to 70-year-olds, and approaches 50% in those over 75 years. While loss of muscle mass explains a significant component of weakness, other factors are emerging as important contributors. In particular changes at the level of the motor neuron and motor unit are discussed. Muscle power has emerged as an important indicator of function in older adults, and we discuss knee osteoarthritis as a model of accelerated limb sarcopenia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations183
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterdisciplinary topics in gerontology and geriatricsSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207