DIFFERENT INDICES OF MUSCLE MASS MAY LEAD TO DIFFERENT ASSOCIATIONS WITH THE HOMA-IR SCORE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muscle is considered the principal site of glucose uptake and its loss thought to contribute to the development of insulin resistance. The method used to present muscle mass index could account for the discrepancies in establishing the relationship with insulin resistance. We wished to determine the association of the HOMA-IR with two indices of muscle mass: height-muscle mass index (HMMI; kg muscle/height in m2), and weight muscle mass index (WMMI; kg muscle/body weight X 100) in 440 non-diabetic, men and women of the Quebec Longitudinal Study NuAge. HMMI was positively correlated with HOMA-IR (r=0.340, p<0.001) and WMMI negatively (r=-0.211, p<0.001). Correcting for fat mass made the association to disappear for the WMMI. Since correcting for fat mass eliminates this association for the WMMI, one can infer that this index gives a spurious inverse relationship, likely by creating a false relative low MMI for persons with higher adiposity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".