MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389343192 · doi:10.1002/jcsm.13362

Using magnetic resonance imaging to measure head muscles: An innovative method to opportunistically determine muscle mass and detect sarcopenia

2023· article· en· W4389343192 on OpenAlexaff
Miguel Germán Borda, Gustavo Duque, Mario Ulises Pérez‐Zepeda, Jonathan Patricio Baldera, Eric Westman, Anna Zettergren, Jessica Samuelsson, Silke Kern, Lina Rydén, Ingmar Skoog, Dag Aarsland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and Muscle · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersDemensfondenAlzheimerfondenKing's College LondonDepartment of Health and Social CareVetenskapsrådetHelse VestStiftelsen Psykiatriska ForskningsfondenNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsSarcopeniaMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineTongueConcordanceMasseter muscleCohen's kappaBioelectrical impedance analysisMasticationNuclear medicineOrthodonticsRadiologyBody mass indexDentistryAnatomyPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia is associated with multiple adverse outcomes. Traditional methods to determine low muscle mass for the diagnosis of sarcopenia are mainly based on dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and bioelectrical impedance analysis. These tests are not always available and are rather time consuming and expensive. However, many brain and head diseases require a head MRI. In this study, we aim to provide a more accessible way to detect sarcopenia by comparing the traditional method of DXA lean mass estimation versus the tongue and masseter muscle mass assessed in a standard brain MRI. METHODS: The H70 study is a longitudinal study of older people living in Gothenburg, Sweden. In this cross-sectional analysis, from 1203 participants aged 70 years at baseline, we included 495 with clinical data and MRI images available. We used the appendicular lean soft tissue index (ALSTI) in DXA images as our reference measure of lean mass. Images from the masseter and tongue were analysed and segmented using 3D Slicer. For the statistical analysis, the Spearman correlation coefficient was used, and concordance was estimated with the Kappa coefficient. RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 495 participants, of which 52.3% were females. We found a significant correlation coefficient between both tongue (0.26) and masseter (0.33) with ALSTI (P < 0.001). The sarcopenia prevalence confirmed using the alternative muscle measure in MRI was calculated using the ALSTI (tongue = 2.0%, masseter = 2.2%, ALSTI = 2.4%). Concordance between sarcopenia with masseter and tongue versus sarcopenia with ALSTI as reference has a Kappa of 0.989 (P < 0.001) for masseter and a Kappa of 1 for the tongue muscle (P < 0.001). Comorbidities evaluated with the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale were significantly associated with all the muscle measurements: ALSTI (odds ratio [OR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.26, P < 0.001), masseter (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07-1.26, P < 0.001) and tongue (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04-1.22, P = 0.002); the higher the comorbidities, the higher the probability of having abnormal muscle mass. CONCLUSIONS: ALSTI was significantly correlated with tongue and masseter muscle mass. When performing the sarcopenia diagnostic algorithm, the prevalence of sarcopenia calculated with head muscles did not differ from sarcopenia calculated using DXA, and almost all participants were correctly classified using both methods.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cachexia Sarcopenia and MuscleSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207