Prevalence of Sarcopenia Among the Elderly in Korea: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Sarcopenia is a common disease in the elderly population that causes disability, poor quality of life, and a high risk of death. In the current study, we conducted a meta-analysis to report basic knowledge about the prevalence of sarcopenia in the elderly in Korea. METHODS: We searched for articles in the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus databases published until December 28, 2020. Studies investigating the prevalence of sarcopenia in elderly Koreans aged ≥65 years were included. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Publication bias was evaluated using the Egger test and funnel plots. RESULTS: In total, 3 studies and 2922 patients were included in the meta-analysis. All 3 studies used the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People criteria for the diagnosis of sarcopenia. The total prevalence of sarcopenia was 13.1-14.9% in elderly men and 11.4% in elderly women. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis is the first to estimate the pooled prevalence of sarcopenia in elderly Koreans, and its findings suggest that sarcopenia is common in this population. Therefore, attention should be paid to the prevention and control of sarcopenia.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".