Poor Physical Function as a Marker of Sarcopenia in Adults with Class II/III Obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ) ≥35] may present with a phenotype characterized by low lean mass and excess fat mass, a condition known as sarcopenic obesity (SO). Little is known about the prevalence and relevance of SO in these individuals, primarily due to a lack of relevant diagnostic criteria. OBJECTIVE: Here, we explored the definition of SO based on physical function as an outcome of interest in adults with class II/III obesity and applied this definition to compare clinical characteristics between SO and non-SO patients. METHODS: In this cross-sectional analysis, patients' demographic, anthropometric, and biochemical characteristics, as well as comorbidities and physical activity levels, were collected at an obesity specialty clinic prior to any treatment. Body composition was assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Physical function was assessed by self-reported difficulties with activities of daily living (ADLs) from an 11-item questionnaire. Five SO definitions were tested against reported difficulty with ADLs with the use of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: = 30, women 22.3%, men 41.2%). SO was significantly associated with older age, higher waist circumference, higher triglycerides, greater use of antihypertensive medications, and lower physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of adults with class II/III obesity, difficulties with ADLs were best associated with measures of ASM in relation to total body weight. Patients identified with SO using this criterion presented with poorer clinical outcomes such as factors of elevated cardiometabolic risk.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".