Relationship between dynapenia and cardiorespiratory functions in healthy postmenopausal women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Muscle strength seems to be a better indicator of physical limitations than skeletal muscle mass is. The purpose of this study was to investigate, using a new developed clinical tool, the relationship between type I dynapenia and cardiorespiratory functions in postmenopausal women. METHODS: Forty-six postmenopausal women were recruited and divided into two groups (dynapenic vs nondynapenic). Body composition (bioelectrical impedancemetry), muscle strength (dynamometer), cardiorespiratory functions (maximum oxygen consumption and forced expiratory volume in 1 second), resting energy expenditure (indirect calorimetry), and dietary intake (3-d dietary journal) were measured. RESULTS: Type I dynapenia was defined as less than 1.53 kg per skeletal muscle mass (kg) based on handgrip dynamometer. Significant differences were found between dynapenic (n=23) and nondynapenic (n=23) postmenopausal women for cardiorespiratory functions (maximum oxygen consumption, P=0.003; and forced expiratory volume in 1 second, P=0.046). We observed no differences between groups for age, age at menopause, use of hormone therapy, body mass index, waist circumference, fat mass, resting energy expenditure, and total energy intake, which are known to be potential confounders. No differences were observed for cardiorespiratory functions when our population was divided into sarcopenic and nonsarcopenic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Type I dynapenic women have significantly poorer cardiorespiratory functions that do nondynapenic women even if they presented the same skeletal muscle mass index. Thus, based on our results, dynapenia could potentially be used as a marker of cardiorespiratory functions. The clinical method developed to identify dynapenic women could be used by health professionals.
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 | 0.000 | 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".