MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Invited Review: Aging and sarcopenia

2003· review· en· W2072399660 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy J. Doherty

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CentreLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSarcopeniaSkeletal muscleMedicineMuscle massMuscle strengthAgeingInternal medicineEndocrinologyQuality of life (healthcare)GerontologyPhysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aging is associated with progressive loss of neuromuscular function that often leads to progressive disability and loss of independence. The term sarcopenia is now commonly used to describe the loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength that occurs in concert with biological aging. By the seventh and eighth decade of life, maximal voluntary contractile strength is decreased, on average, by 20-40% for both men and women in proximal and distal muscles. Although age-associated decreases in strength per unit muscle mass, or muscle quality, may play a role, the majority of strength loss can be accounted for by decreased muscle mass. Multiple factors lead to the development of sarcopenia and the associated impact on function. Loss of skeletal muscle fibers secondary to decreased numbers of motoneurons appears to be a major contributing influence, but other factors, including decreased physical activity, altered hormonal status, decreased total caloric and protein intake, inflammatory mediators, and factors leading to altered protein synthesis, must also be considered. The prevalence of sarcopenia, which may be as high as 30% for those >/=60 yr, will increase as the percentage of the very old continues to grow in our populations. The link between sarcopenia and disability among elderly men and women highlights the need for continued research into the development of the most effective interventions to prevent or at least partially reverse sarcopenia, including the role of resistance exercise and other novel pharmacological and nutritional interventions.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.016

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations1,769
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207