MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096560105 · doi:10.1111/cpf.12679

Site‐specific skeletal muscle echo intensity and thickness differences in subcutaneous adipose tissue matched older and younger adults

2020· article· en· W3096560105 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Physiology and Functional Imaging · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdipose tissueSarcopeniaCohortAgeingAnatomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Age-related deterioration of muscle mass does not occur uniformly across the body. However, there is limited knowledge on the uniformity of age-related muscle composition changes across the body. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to evaluate muscle composition differences between younger and older adults across multiple muscle groups. METHODS: We re-analysed data from a previously published cohort to evaluate differences in ultrasound muscle composition (echo intensity) between younger (<45 years) and older (>60 years) adults, when matched for adipose tissue mass at the anterior upper arm, anterior upper leg and abdominal muscles. Analysis of echo intensity is confounded by subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) thickness overlaying the muscle; we accounted for these effects by matching older and younger adults (1:1), stratified by sex, for absolute SAT thickness at each landmark. RESULTS: From 96 adults (n = females), 58 (n = 34) were SAT matched at the anterior upper arm, 52 (n = 30) at the anterior upper leg and 60 (n = 30) at the abdominal region; thus, there were no age group differences in SAT thickness at each landmark. In comparison with younger adults, older adults presented with greater echo intensity at the anterior upper leg (females:40.3 ± 6.8 vs. 52.4 ± 7.6; males:35.7 ± 8.0 vs. 54.3 ± 9.8, p < .01) and abdominal (females:38.7 ± 27.6 vs. 73.4 ± 31.0; males:18.7 ± 15.2 vs. 60.9 ± 23.4, p < .01) muscles, but not anterior upper arm muscles (females:47.0 ± 6.5 vs. 53.2 ± 13.1; males:43.4 ± 8.9 vs. 48.9 ± 10.1, p = .18). CONCLUSIONS: Distinct age-related differences in trunk and lower limb muscle composition were evident compared to upper limb muscles; highlighting the importance of quantifying specific muscle groups when evaluating age-associated muscle characteristics.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.272 · 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