Low muscle mass in older adults and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sarcopenia comprises a loss of muscle function and muscle mass. So far, the association between loss of muscle mass and mortality in older adults is inconsistent. A meta-analysis was performed to assess whether muscle mass measured by appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI) is associated with higher mortality in older adults. Articles of interest were searched for in two databases (PudMed® and Embase®). Cohort and case-control studies reporting ASMI and mortality and enrolling community-dwelling adults aged 65 years or more were included. Nine articles were eligible and included for analysis (n=10,028). All but one study were considered of high quality by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessment. We calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) for ASMI between dead and living individuals during follow-up across studies. A reduced pooled ASMI in individuals who died as compared to those who survived was found (ASMI SMD=-0.18, CI95% -0.23 to -0.12, REM). A meta-regression was performed including ASMI SMD, grip strength SMD, body mass index (BMI), sex, study quality, method used to assess ASMI, site of study and age. BMI and ethnicity were found to significantly impact the difference in ASMI between dead and living individuals. These results reinforce the prognostic importance of assessing muscle mass in older adults.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".