MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387033723 · doi:10.1097/mco.0000000000000969

Challenges and physiological implications of sarcopenia in children and youth in health and disease

2023· review· en· W4387033723 on OpenAlexafffund
Diana R. Mager, Amber Hager, Susan Gilmour

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSarcopeniaDiseaseMedicineGerontologyEnvironmental healthIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Highlight the controversies and challenges associated with a sarcopenia diagnosis in infants and children and the potential physiological mechanisms contributing to this disorder. RECENT FINDINGS: Sarcopenia has been recently identified in infants and children with chronic diseases such as liver, cardiac, gastrointestinal, cancer and organ transplant recipients. However, there is no consensus regarding the definition of pediatric sarcopenia. Different sarcopenic phenotypes (sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity) have been identified in healthy children and children with chronic disease. Both conditions have been associated with adverse clinical outcomes (e.g. delayed growth, increased hospitalization) in children and youth with chronic disease. The etiology of pediatric sarcopenia is likely multifactorial associated with malnutrition, physical inactivity and altered metabolic environments influencing skeletal muscle mass accumulation and function. Gaps in the literature include the lack of standard tools that should be used for the evaluation of skeletal muscular fitness and body composition in sarcopenia, particularly in infants and young children (<4years). SUMMARY: Longitudinal evaluation of sarcopenia expression and the underlying physiological and lifestyle factors contributing to pediatric sarcopenia are important to understand to ensure effective rehabilitation strategies can be developed and to avoid the adverse clinical consequences in children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.502
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.055 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic CareSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207