MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3143911518 · doi:10.1002/jbmr.4293

Sarcopenia Definitions as Predictors of Fracture Risk Independent of FRAX®, Falls, and BMD in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Study: A Meta-Analysis

2020· review· en· W3143911518 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas C. Harvey, Eric Orwoll, Timothy Kwok, Magnus K. Karlsson, Björn E. Rosengren, Eva Ribom, Jane A. Cauley, Peggy M. Cawthon, Kristine E. Ensrud, Enwu Liu, Alfonso J. Cruz‐Jentoft, Roger A. Fielding, Cyrus Cooper, John А. Kanis, Mattias Lorentzon, Claes Ohlsson, Dan Mellström, Helena Johansson, Eugène McCloskey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bone and Joint Health Institute
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institute on AgingVersus ArthritisNovo Nordisk FondenMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsSarcopeniaMedicineFRAXOsteoporosisHip fractureLean body massGrip strengthHazard ratioFemoral neckPhysical therapyInternal medicineGerontologyBone mineralConfidence intervalOsteoporotic fracture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-derived appendicular lean mass/height2 (ALM/ht2) is the most commonly used estimate of muscle mass in the assessment of sarcopenia, but its predictive value for fracture is substantially attenuated by femoral neck (fn) bone mineral density (BMD). We investigated predictive value of 11 sarcopenia definitions for incident fracture, independent of fnBMD, fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX®) probability, and prior falls, using an extension of Poisson regression in US, Sweden, and Hong Kong Osteoporois Fractures in Men Study (MrOS) cohorts. Definitions tested were those of Baumgartner and Delmonico (ALM/ht2 only), Morley, the International Working Group on Sarcopenia, European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP1 and 2), Asian Working Group on Sarcopenia, Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) 1 and 2 (using ALM/body mass index [BMI], incorporating muscle strength and/or physical performance measures plus ALM/ht2), and Sarcopenia Definitions and Outcomes Consortium (gait speed and grip strength). Associations were adjusted for age and time since baseline and reported as hazard ratio (HR) for first incident fracture, here major osteoporotic fracture (MOF; clinical vertebral, hip, distal forearm, proximal humerus). Further analyses adjusted additionally for FRAX-MOF probability (n = 7531; calculated ± fnBMD), prior falls (y/n), or fnBMD T-score. Results were synthesized by meta-analysis. In 5660 men in USA, 2764 Sweden and 1987 Hong Kong (mean ages 73.5, 75.4, and 72.4 years, respectively), sarcopenia prevalence ranged from 0.5% to 35%. Sarcopenia status, by all definitions except those of FNIH, was associated with incident MOF (HR = 1.39 to 2.07). Associations were robust to adjustment for prior falls or FRAX probability (without fnBMD); adjustment for fnBMD T-score attenuated associations. EWGSOP2 severe sarcopenia (incorporating chair stand time, gait speed, and grip strength plus ALM) was most predictive, albeit at low prevalence, and appeared only modestly influenced by inclusion of fnBMD. In conclusion, the predictive value for fracture of sarcopenia definitions based on ALM is reduced by adjustment for fnBMD but strengthened by additional inclusion of physical performance measures. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.024
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.282
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.212 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations73
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral ResearchSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207