“Sarcopenia and risk of osteoporosis, falls and bone fractures in patients with chronic kidney disease: A systematic review”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease [CKD] has been suggested to increase the risk of osteoporosis, sarcopenia, falls, and fractures. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the occurrence of osteoporosis, falls, and fractures in patients with sarcopenia and CKD, and to explore the possible association between sarcopenia and osteoporosis, falls, and fractures in patients with CKD. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guideline. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO. The systematic literature search was conducted in Pubmed [1966 to present] and EMBASE [1974 to present] on December 4, 2020. We searched for articles on CKD and sarcopenia, and then we selected them with outcomes such as osteoporosis, falls, and bone fractures. The risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Five studies were eligible and included. No studies reported the occurrence of osteoporosis, falls, and bone fractures in patients with CKD and sarcopenia. Sarcopenia had a significant association with low bone mineral density [BMD] and osteoporosis in patients with CKD. The risk of bias assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale varied from 3-7 stars [median of 7]. Due to the included studies' heterogeneity, a meta-analysis could not be conducted. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of osteoporosis, falls, and bone fractures in patients with sarcopenia and CKD could not be assessed from the included studies, but an association between sarcopenia and decreased BMD/osteoporosis in patients with CKD was found. The potential mechanistic link between sarcopenia and osteoporosis in CKD needs to be investigated in future studies.
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) | 0.004 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".