Combination of dynapenia and abdominal obesity affects long-term physical performance trajectories in older adults: sex differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is little epidemiological evidence of sex differences in the association between dynapenic abdominal obesity and the decline in physical performance in older adults. OBJECTIVES: The aims of the present study were to investigate whether the decline in physical performance is worse in individuals with dynapenic abdominal obesity and whether there are sex differences in this association. METHODS: Of 6183 individuals aged ≥60 y from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, 2308 participants with missing data were excluded. Therefore, a longitudinal analysis was conducted with 3875 older adults. Abdominal obesity was determined based on waist circumference (>102 cm for males, and >88 cm for females), and dynapenia was based on grip strength (<26 kg for males, <16 kg for female). The sample was divided into 4 groups: nondynapenic/nonabdominal obesity (ND/NAO), nondynapenic/abdominal obesity (ND/AO), dynapenic/nonabdominal obesity (D/NAO), and dynapenic/abdominal obesity (D/AO). Decline in physical performance in an 8-y follow-up period was analyzed using generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: At baseline, both male (-1.11 points; 95% CI: -1.58, -0.65 points; P < 0.001) and female (-1.39 points; 95% CI: -1.76, -1.02 points; P < 0.001) with D/AO had worse performances on the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) than their counterparts in the ND/NAO group. Over the 8-y follow-up, males with D/AO had a faster rate of decline in the SPPB performance compared with males in the ND/NAO group (-0.11 points/y; 95% CI: -0.21, -0.01 points; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: D/AO is associated with a stronger decline in physical performance in males but not in females. The identification and management of dynapenic abdominal obesity could be essential to avoiding the first signs of functional impairment in older males.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".