MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365146130 · doi:10.3390/women3020017

Body Image, Body Composition, and Aging in Women: Insights into an Older Adult Problem

2023· article· en· W4365146130 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald B. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSarcopeniaSarcopenic obesityObesityMedicineBody mass indexOverweightCalorieClassification of obesityTrunkInternal medicineEndocrinologyPhysiologyGerontologyFat massBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Body image is understudied in aging women. The present perspective article reviews body image, body composition, and aging in women. Sarcopenia, a condition of low muscle mass, is associated with aging, and sarcopenia in combination with excessive body fat causes sarcopenic obesity. Findings of improved health in people with a higher body mass index, known as the obesity paradox, are due to misclassifying healthy people as overweight according to height and body weight instead of according to fat mass and fat-free mass. Body fat infiltrates internal organs in aging adults as increasing levels of body fat are redistributed into the trunk, especially in the abdomen, while subcutaneous fat in the appendages decreases. Accuracy of body image perceptions can determine an individual’s control of body weight. Aging women can protect against sarcopenic obesity by increasing fat-free mass with resistance training and by lowering body fat levels with weight management knowledge and skills. Healthy dietary patterns are low in ultra-processed foods that stimulate excessive consumption of calories and increase body fat levels. In combination with the phosphate additives in ultra-processed food which increase sarcopenia and aging, the present article proposes an etiological pathway in which ultra-processed food consumption eventually leads to aging-related sarcopenic obesity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomenSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207