Sarcopenia and Physical Function: In Overweight Patients with Advanced Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advanced cancer is associated with numerous metabolic abnormalities that may lead to significant body composition changes, particularly muscle loss or sarcopenia. Sarcopenia in cancer has been associated with poor clinical outcomes, including poor physical function. Accurate tools to assess body composition are expensive and not readily available in clinical settings. Unfortunately, little is known about the efficacy of affordable and portable techniques to assess functional status in patients with cancer. We investigated the prevalence of sarcopenia and its association with different portable and low-cost functional status measurement tools (i.e., handgrip strength testing, a two-minute walking test, and a self-report questionnaire) in overweight/obese patients (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m²) with advanced cancer. Twenty-eight patients (68% men) aged 64.5 ± 9.5 years with advanced lung or colorectal cancer were included. Sarcopenia was assessed by measuring appendicular skeletal muscle (ASM) adjusted by height (ASM index), using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Approximately 36% of patients had sarcopenia. Average handgrip strength was greater in men without sarcopenia than in men with it (p=0.035). In men, ASM index was positively correlated with average (r=0.535, p=0.018) and peak handgrip strength (r=0.457, p=0.049). No differences were observed among female patients. Handgrip strength was associated with sarcopenia in male patients with advanced cancer, and therefore it may be used as a portable and simple nutritional screening tool.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".