Review article: Putting some muscle into sarcopenia—the pathogenesis, assessment and clinical impact of muscle loss in patients with inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia, a loss of skeletal muscle mass or function, affects up to 50% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and is associated with poor clinical outcomes including increased hospitalizations, need for surgery and post-operative complications. Despite the high prevalence and clinical significance of sarcopenia in patients with IBD, few patients undergo routine muscle evaluation. AIM: The goal of this study was to review the mechanisms of sarcopenia in patients with IBD and understand novel modalities to assess and treat impaired muscle mass or function. METHODS: Pubmed and Cochrane databases were searched including articles published up to February 2023 utilizing the following keywords: "inflammatory bowel disease", "IBD", "Crohn's disease", "ulcerative colitis", "sarcopenia", "myosteatosis", "muscle health", and "frailty". RESULTS: The pathogenesis of sarcopenia in IBD is not well defined, however, there is evidence supporting the role of malabsorption, reduced protein intake, chronic inflammation, dysbiosis, decreased physical activity, medication effects and hormone signaling from visceral adiposity. Traditional sarcopenia assessment techniques include direct measurements on cross sectional imaging. However, given the time, cost and radiation exposure associated with cross sectional imaging, new bedside tools are now available to estimate muscle mass, including assessment of grip strength, mid upper arm circumference and body composition utilizing bioelectrical impedance analysis. In addition, novel biomarkers for assessing muscle mass and techniques utilizing point of care ultrasound have been proposed to make sarcopenia evaluation more streamlined in the IBD clinic. CONCLUSION: Sarcopenia is associated with poor clinical outcomes independent of IBD activity and therefore muscle health should be assessed in all IBD patients at routine intervals. Future studies to better our understanding of the pathophysiology as well as most effective management of sarcopenia in IBD will help guide clinical care and reduce disease related complications.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".