Relationship of Fat Mass Index and Fat Free Mass Index With Body Mass Index and Association With Function, Cognition and Sarcopenia in Pre-Frail Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Body mass index (BMI) is an inadequate marker of obesity, and cannot distinguish between fat mass, fat free mass and distribution of adipose tissue. The purpose of this study was twofold. First, to assess cross-sectional relationship of BMI with fat mass index (FMI), fat free mass index (FFMI) and ratio of fat mass to fat free mass (FM/FFM). Second, to study the association of FMI, FFMI and FM/FFM with physical function including sarcopenia, and cognition in pre-frail older adults. Methods: Cross-sectional study of 191 pre-frail participants ≥ 65 years, 57.1% females. Data was collected on demographics, cognition [Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)], function, frailty, calf circumference, handgrip strength (HGS), short physical performance battery (SPPB) and gait speed. Body composition was measured using InBody S10. FMI, FFMI and FM/FFM were classified into tertiles (T1, T2, T3) with T1 classified as lowest and T3 highest tertile respectively and stratified by BMI. Results: Higher FFMI and lower FM/FFM in the high BMI group were associated with better functional outcomes. Prevalence of low muscle mass was higher in the normal BMI group. FMI and FM/FFM were significantly higher in females and FFMI in males with significant gender differences except for FFMI in ≥ 80 years old. Small calf circumference was significantly less prevalent in the highest tertile of FMI, FM/FMI and FFMI. Prevalence of sarcopenic obesity and low physical function (HGS, gait speed and SPPB scores) were significantly higher in the highest FMI and FM/FFM tertile. Highest FFMI tertile group had higher physical function, higher MoCA scores, lower prevalence of sarcopenic obesity and sarcopenia, After adjustment, highest tertile of FFMI was associated with lower odds of sarcopenia especially in the high BMI group. Highest tertile of FM/FFM was associated with higher odds of sarcopenia. Higher BMI was associated with lower odds of sarcopenia. Conclusion: FFMI and FM/FFM may be a better predictor of functional outcomes in pre-frail older adults than BMI. Cut-off values for healthy BMI values and role of calf circumference as a screening tool for sarcopenia need to be validated in larger population. Health promotion intervention should focus on FFMI increment.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".