MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2267021416 · doi:10.1097/mco.0000000000000259

Assessment of skeletal muscle mass in critically ill patients

2016· review· en· W2267021416 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael T. Paris, Marina Mourtzakis

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBioelectrical impedance analysisMedicineSkeletal muscleMuscle atrophyCritically illUltrasonographyMuscle architectureWastingAtrophyIntensive care medicineSarcopeniaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRadiologyPathologyInternal medicineBody mass indexAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Low muscularity and skeletal muscle atrophy are commonly exhibited in critically ill patients and have major implications on patient outcomes. Typically, in the ICU, body composition is assessed through anthropometrics or bioelectrical impedance analysis, but these modalities cannot specifically quantify skeletal muscle; thus, we evaluate the merits and challenges of using computed tomography (CT) and ultrasonography to specifically measure skeletal muscle in the ICU. RECENT FINDINGS: CT-based cut points have been used to identify critically ill patients with low muscle mass, and low muscularity associates with poor clinical outcomes and function. Ultrasonography is emerging as a useful tool to quantify skeletal muscle loss and degradation in architecture, as well as prospectively track changes in these parameters over time. Rates of muscle atrophy and changes in muscle architecture has been quantified by ultrasonography and associated with poor clinical outcomes, but identification of critically ill patients with low muscularity is still in its infancy. SUMMARY: CT imaging and ultrasonography require additional comprehensive validations against accurate measures of whole body muscle mass. As these validations begin to emerge, there will be a need to translate this knowledge into a simple tool that clinicians can apply as part of routine care.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.184
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations85
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic CareSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207