Development of a bedside viable ultrasound protocol to quantify appendicular lean tissue mass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ultrasound is a non-invasive and readily available tool that can be prospectively applied at the bedside to assess muscle mass in clinical settings. The four-site protocol, which images two anatomical sites on each quadriceps, may be a viable bedside method, but its ability to predict musculature has not been compared against whole-body reference methods. Our primary objectives were to (i) compare the four-site protocol's ability to predict appendicular lean tissue mass from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; (ii) optimize the predictability of the four-site protocol with additional anatomical muscle thicknesses and easily obtained covariates; and (iii) assess the ability of the optimized protocol to identify individuals with low lean tissue mass. METHODS: This observational cross-sectional study recruited 96 university and community dwelling adults. Participants underwent ultrasound scans for assessment of muscle thickness and whole-body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans for assessment of appendicular lean tissue. Ultrasound protocols included (i) the nine-site protocol, which images nine anterior and posterior muscle groups in supine and prone positions, and (ii) the four-site protocol, which images two anterior sites on each quadriceps muscle group in a supine position. RESULTS: = 0.91) with appendicular lean tissue and displayed narrower limits of agreement (-3.18, 3.18 kg). The optimized protocol demonstrated a strong ability to identify low lean tissue mass (area under the curve = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: The four-site protocol can be improved with the addition of the anterior upper arm muscle thickness, sex, and age when predicting appendicular lean tissue mass. This optimized protocol can accurately identify low lean tissue mass, while still being easily applied at the bedside.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".