Prevalence and risk factors of sarcopenia in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Sarcopenia often occurs as a comorbidity in many diseases which ultimately affects patient prognosis. However, it has received little attention in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at determining the prevalence and risk factors of sarcopenia in patients with IPF. Methods Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched using relevant MeSH terms until December 31, 2022. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for quality assessment and data analysis were performed using Stata MP 17.0 (Texas, USA). A random effects model was adopted to account for differences between articles, and the I 2 statistic was used to describe statistical heterogeneities. Overall pooled estimates obtained from a random effects model were estimated using the metan command. Forest plots were generated to graphically represent the data of the meta-analysis. Meta-regression analysis was used for count or continuous variables. Egger test was used to evaluate publication bias and, if publication bias was observed, the trim and fill method was used. Main results The search results showed 154 studies, and five studies (three cross-section and two cohort studies) with 477 participants were finally included. No significant heterogeneity was observed among studies included in the meta-analysis ( I 2 = 16.00%) and our study's publication bias is low (Egger test, p = 0.266). The prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with IPF was 26% (95% CI, 0.22–0.31). The risk factors for sarcopenia in patients with IPF were age ( p = 0.0131), BMI ( p = 0.001), FVC% ( p < 0.001), FEV1% ( p = 0.006), DLco% ( p ≤ 0.001), and GAP score ( p = 0.003). Conclusions The pooled prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with IPF was 26%. The risk factors for sarcopenia in IPF patients were age, BMI, FVC%, FEV1%, DLco%, and GAP score. It is important to identify these risk factors as early as possible to improve the life quality of patients with IPF.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".