Prevalence of Sarcopenic Obesity Using Different Definitions and the Relationship With Strength and Physical Performance in the Canadian Longitudinal Study of Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sarcopenic obesity is associated with several negative health outcomes. However, the prevalence of this condition – and the relationship to physical performance parameters – varies across definitions. The aim of this cross-sectional investigation was to describe the prevalence of sarcopenic obesity using different published definitions and their relationship with handgrip strength and walking speed in older Canadian adults. Individuals aged 65+ in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging ( n = 11,803; 49.6% male, 50.4% female) were included. Body composition was measured using dual X-ray absorptiometry. Sarcopenic obesity was defined using 29 definitions. Low handgrip strength was identified as < 27 kg in males and < 16 kg in females and poor physical performance was defined as gait speed ≤ 0.8 m/s. The prevalence of sarcopenic obesity ranged from 0.1 to 85.3% in males, and from 0 to 80.4% in females. Sarcopenic obesity was frequently associated with low handgrip strength ( p < 0.05) in both males (14/17 definitions, 82.4%) and females (21/29 definitions, 72.4%). In very few definitions, sarcopenic obesity was associated with slow gait speed (males: 1/17 definitions [6.7%]; females: 2/29 [6.9%]). In conclusion, the prevalence of sarcopenic obesity varied greatly according to definitions and sarcopenic obesity was frequently associated with low handgrip strength.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".