Sarcopenic/Obesity and Physical Capacity in Older Men and Women: Data From the Nutrition as a Determinant of Successful Aging (NuAge)—the Quebec Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sarcopenia and obesity have been independently associated with physical capacity impairments. However, few studies have investigated the impact of sarcopenic/obesity on physical capacity in older individuals using objective measures of physical capacity and body composition. This study included 904 older individuals aged between 68 and 82 years old. Body composition (fat mass (FM) and lean body mass (LBM) by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)), physical capacity (timed up and go, chair stands, walking speed at normal and fastest pace, and one leg stand), sum of reported chronic conditions and physical activity level were measured. A global physical capacity score was then calculated giving a maximal score of 20. Finally, four groups were created within genders based on sarcopenia and obesity ((i) nonsarcopenic/nonobese; (ii) sarcopenic/nonobese; (iii) nonsarcopenic/obese; (iv) sarcopenic/obese). The four groups were significantly different for the sit-to-stand test and the one leg stand test (P < 0.05) and only for the one leg stand test in women (P < 0.05). In both genders results for the global physical capacity score revealed that both obese groups (sarcopenic and nonsarcopenic) were similar (P = 0.14 in men and P = 0.19 in women) and had a lower global physical capacity score compared to nonsarcopenic/nonobese individuals (P < 0.05). In addition, sarcopenic women displayed a higher score than both obese nonsarcopenic and obese sarcopenic groups (P < 0.01). Sarcopenic/obese men and women do not display lower physical capacity compared to nonsarcopenic/obese individuals in this cohort of well-functioning older men and women. Obesity per se appears to contribute more to lower physical capacity than 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".