Regional Muscle and Whole-Body Composition Factors Related to Mobility in Older Individuals: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe previously reported locomotor muscle and whole-body composition factors related to mobility in older individuals. METHODS: A narrative review of the literature, including a combination of search terms related to muscle and whole-body composition factors and to mobility in older individuals, was carried out. Statistical measures of association and risk were consolidated to summarize the common effects between studies. RESULTS: Fifty-three studies were reviewed. Muscle and whole-body factors accounted for a substantial amount of the variability in walking speed, with coefficients of determination ranging from 0.30 to 0.47. Muscle power consistently accounted for a greater percentage of the variance in mobility than did strength. Risks associated with high fat mass presented a minimum odds ratio (OR) of 0.70 and a maximum OR of 4.07, while the minimum and maximum ORs associated with low lean mass were 0.87 and 2.30 respectively. Whole-body and regional fat deposits accounted for significant amounts of the variance in mobility. CONCLUSION: Muscle power accounts for a greater amount of the variance in the level of mobility in older individuals than does muscle strength. Whole-body fat accounts for a greater amount of the variance in level of mobility than does whole-body lean tissue. Fat stored within muscle also appears to increase the risk of a mobility limitation in older individuals.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".