MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806859832 · doi:10.2147/cia.s164113

Sarcopenic obesity and cognitive performance

2018· article· en· W2806859832 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Magdalena I. Tolea, Stephanie Chrisphonte, James E. Galvin

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Interventions in Aging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMorris and Alma Schapiro FundNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthNew York State Department of Health
KeywordsSarcopeniaSarcopenic obesityMedicineObesityCognitionBody mass indexGrip strengthGerontologyInternal medicinePhysical therapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Sarcopenia and obesity both negatively impact health including cognitive function. Their coexistence, however, can pose an even higher threat likely surpassing their individual effects. We assessed the relationship of sarcopenic obesity with performance on global- and subdomain-specific tests of cognition. Patients and methods: The study was a cross-sectional analysis of data from a series of community-based aging and memory studies. The sample consisted of a total of 353 participants with an average age of 69 years with a clinic visit and valid cognitive (eg, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, animal naming), functional (eg, grip strength, chair stands), and body composition (eg, muscle mass, body mass index, percent body fat) measurements. Results: Sarcopenic obesity was associated with the lowest performance on global cognition (Est. Definition1 =−2.85±1.38, p =0.039), followed by sarcopenia (Est. Definition1 =−1.88±0.79, p =0.017) and obesity (Est. Definition1 =−1.10±0.81, p =0.175) adjusted for sociodemographic factors. The latter, however, did not differ significantly from the comparison group consisting of older adults with neither sarcopenia nor obesity. Subdomain-specific analyses revealed executive function (Est. Definition1 =−1.22±0.46 for sarcopenic obesity; Est. Definition1 =−0.76±0.26 for sarcopenia; Est. Definition1 =−0.52±0.27 for obesity all at p 0.05) and orientation (Est. Definition1 =0.59±0.26 for sarcopenic obesity; Est. Definition1 =−0.36±0.15 for sarcopenia; Est. Definition1 =−0.29±0.15 all but obesity significant at p <0.05) as the individual cognitive skills likely to be impacted. Potential age-specific and depression effects are discussed. Conclusion: Sarcopenia alone and in combination with sarcopenic obesity can be used in clinical practice as indicators of probable cognitive impairment. At-risk older adults may benefit from programs addressing loss of cognitive function by maintaining/improving strength and preventing obesity. Keywords: sarcopenia, obesity, sarcopenic obesity, cognition, cross-sectional studies

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations84
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Interventions in AgingSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207