Dynapenic-Obesity and Physical Function in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynapenia (low muscle strength) and obesity are associated with an impaired physical function. It was hypothesized that older individuals with both conditions (dynapenic-obesity) would have a more impaired physical function than individuals with dynapenia or obesity alone. This cross-sectional study included 2,039 men and women aged 55 years and older from the 1999–2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Fat mass was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and leg strength by dynamometer. Based on fat mass and leg strength tertiles, four independent groups were identified: non-dynapenic and non-obese, obese alone, dynapenic alone, and dynapenic-obese. An objective physical function measure was obtained from a 20-foot walking speed test, whereas subjective physical function measures were obtained from five self-reported questions. Within both sexes, the dynapenic-obese group had a slower walking speed than the non-dynapenic and non-obese and obese-alone groups (p ≤ .01) but not the dynapenic-alone group. Similarly, with the exception of the dynapenic-alone group in men, the global subjective score was lower in the dynapenic-obese group than in the non-dynapenic and non-obese and obese-alone groups (p ≤ .01). By comparison to the dynapenic-obese group, the adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for walking disability were 0.21 (0.12–0.35) in the non-dynapenic and non-obese, 0.34 (0.20–0.56) in the obese-alone, and 0.54 (0.33–0.89) in the dynapenic-obese groups. The corresponding odds ratios for a disability based on the global subjective score were 0.20 (0.09–0.42), 0.60 (0.30–1.21), and 0.41 (0.19–0.87). Dynapenic-obesity was associated with a poorer physical function than obesity alone and in most cases with dynapenia alone.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".