A comparative study of the sarcopenia screening in older patients with interstitial lung disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2019 (AWGS 2019) is the gold standard diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia in Asian populations. The calf circumference (CalF), the strength, assistance in walking, rising from a chair, climbing stairs, and falls (SARC-F) and the SARC-CalF questionnaires for sarcopenia screening have been used by AWGS 2019. The aim of this study was to assess accuracy of these three sarcopenia screening tools in patients with interstitial lung disease. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, stable patients with interstitial lung disease were enrolled. The SARC-F, SARC-CalF, and CalF, used in patients with interstitial lung disease, were compared to the diagnostic criteria proposed by AWGS 2019. The accuracy of screening tools was compared using sensitivity and specificity. Moreover, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were computed. RESULTS: Seventy eight patients were analyzed, and sarcopenia was identified in 25 (32.1%) patients with interstitial lung disease by the AWGS 2019 criteria. The sensitivity of the CalF was highest (96%) of the three screening tools, while the specificity was 60%. The sensitivity of SARC-F and SARC-CalF were 24% and 68%, while the specificity were 92% and 66%, respectively. The AUCs of CalF, SARC-F, and SARC-CalF in all patients were 0.78, 0.58, and 0.67, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The CalF is most suitable for screening sarcopenia in patients with interstitial lung disease, while SARC-F and SARC-CalF are not.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".