Diagnostic ultrasound estimates of muscle mass and muscle quality discriminate between women with and without sarcopenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Age-related changes in muscle mass and muscle tissue composition contribute to diminished strength in older adults. The objectives of this study are to examine if an assessment method using mobile diagnostic ultrasound augments well-known determinants of lean body mass (LBM) to aid sarcopenia staging, and if a sonographic measure of muscle quality is associated with muscle performance. METHODS: Twenty community-dwelling female subjects participated in the study (age = 43.4 ± 20.9 years; BMI: 23.8, interquartile range: 8.5). Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and diagnostic ultrasound morphometry were used to estimate LBM. Muscle tissue quality was estimated via the echogenicity using grayscale histogram analysis. Peak force was measured with grip dynamometry and scaled for body size. Bivariate and multiple regression analyses were used to determine the association of the predictor variables with appendicular lean mass (aLM/ht(2)), and examine the relationship between scaled peak force values and muscle echogenicity. The sarcopenia LBM cut point value of 6.75 kg/m(2) determined participant assignment into the Normal LBM and Low LBM subgroups. RESULTS: The selected LBM predictor variables were body mass index (BMI), ultrasound morphometry, and age. Although BMI exhibited a significant positive relationship with aLM/ht(2) (adj. R (2) = 0.61, p < 0.001), the strength of association improved with the addition of ultrasound morphometry and age as predictor variables (adj. R (2) = 0.85, p < 0.001). Scaled peak force was associated with age and echogenicity (adj. R (2) = 0.53, p < 0.001), but not LBM. The Low LBM subgroup of women (n = 10) had higher scaled peak force, lower BMI, and lower echogenicity values in comparison to the Normal LBM subgroup (n = 10; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic ultrasound morphometry values are associated with LBM, and improve the BMI predictive model for aLM/ht(2) in women. In addition, ultrasound proxy measures of muscle quality are more strongly associated with strength than muscle mass within the study sample.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".