Decreased muscle mass in type-2 diabetes. A hidden comorbidity to consider
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Objectives: an expert report is presented on the situation of loss of muscle mass in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), with a proposal of what the clinical approach to this comorbidity should be, based on the evidence from the literature and clinical experience. Method: a qualitative expert opinion study was carried out using the nominal approach. A literature search on diabetes and muscle was made and submitted to a multidisciplinary group of 7 experts who through a face-to-face meeting discussed different aspects of the role of muscle mass in T2DM. Results: muscle mass must be taken into account in the clinical context of patients with T2DM. It has an enormous impact on patient function and quality of life, and is as important as adequate metabolic control of T2DM. Conclusions: in addition to drug therapy and diet adjustments, aerobic and strength activities are essential for maintaining muscle mass and function in diabetic patients. In concrete situations, artificial oral supplementation specific for muscle care could improve the situation of malnutrition and low muscle mass. Measures such as the walking speed test, chair test, or the SARC-F questionnaire, together with the Barthel index, constitute a first step to diagnose relevant impairment requiring intervention in patients with T2DM. This document seeks to answer some questions about the importance, assessment, and control of muscle mass in T2DM.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".