Resting metabolic rate in adults with facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to determine whether resting metabolic rate (RMR) is altered in adults with facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD). Eleven people with FSHD (51 ± 12yrs, 2 females) and 11 controls (48 ± 14 yrs, 2 females) completed 1 visit, including 30-minutes of indirect calorimetry and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanning. RMR was calculated from resting oxygen consumption/carbon dioxide production; regional/whole-body fat mass and lean mass were collected from the DXA scan. Absolute RMR was 15% lower in FSHD (p = 0.04); when normalized to regional/local lean mass, no differences in RMR were observed (p > 0.05). Absolute RMR was correlated with total lean mass for all participants combined (p < 0.01, r = 0.70, males only: p < 0.01, r = 0.81) and when analyzed separately (FSHD males: p = 0.001, r = 0.92 and control males: p = 0.004, r = 0.85). Whole-body lean mass was 16% lower in FSHD and leg, arm and appendicular lean mass were lower in FSHD (p < 0.05 for all), though trunk lean mass was not (p = 0.15). Whole-body fat mass was 45% higher in FSHD, with greater leg fat mass (p = 0.01), but not trunk or arm fat mass (p > 0.05 for both). When RMR was expressed relative to lean body mass, no differences in RMR were found, indicating that the lower levels of lean mass observed in FSHD patients likely contribute to the lower absolute RMR values. Novelty: RMR is lower among people with FSHD, as compared with controls. The reduced RMR among people with FSHD is due to disease-related loss in muscle mass and likely related to lower physical activity and/or exercise levels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".