Estimation of Thigh Muscle Mass With Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Older Adults and People With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Quantifying muscle mass is an essential part of physical therapy assessment, particularly in older adults and in people with chronic conditions associated with muscle atrophy. The purposes of this study were to examine the relationship between muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and volume by use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to compare anthropometric estimations of midthigh CSA with measurements obtained from MRI. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty older adults who were healthy and 20 people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), matched for age, sex, and body mass index, underwent MRI to obtain measurements of thigh muscle CSA and volume. Anthropometric measurements (skinfold thickness and thigh circumference) were used to estimate midthigh CSA. RESULTS: Muscle volumes were significantly lower in the people with COPD than in the older adults who were healthy. Moderate to high correlations were found between midthigh CSA and volume in both groups (r=.61-.94). Anthropometric measurements tended to overestimate midthigh CSA in both the people with COPD (estimated CSA=64.9+/-17.8; actual CSA=48.3+/-10.2 cm(2)) and the older adults who were healthy (estimated quadriceps femoris muscle CSA=65.0+/-14.0; actual CSA=56.8+/-13.5 cm(2)). Furthermore, the estimated quadriceps femoris muscle CSAs were not sensitive enough to detect a difference in muscle size between people with COPD and controls. Thigh circumference alone was not different between groups and showed only low to moderate correlations with muscle volume (r=.19-.47). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Muscle CSA measured from a single slice provides a good indication of volume, but the most representative slice should be chosen on the basis of the muscle group of interest. Thigh circumference is not correlated with muscle volume and, therefore, should not be used as an indicator of muscle size. The development of population-specific reference equations for estimating muscle CSA from anthropometric measurements is warranted.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".