Prevalence and prognostic value of baseline sarcopenia in hematologic malignancies: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The correlation between sarcopenia and hematological malignancy prognosis is still controversial. Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: To explore sarcopenia's prevalence and prognostic value in hematologic malignancies. Data sources and methods: We searched Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library through Ovid SP using an appropriate search strategy on August 28, 2022, and updated the search results on January 9, 2023. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The pooled prevalence of sarcopenia was calculated with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Relationships between sarcopenia and prognostic value were expressed as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI. HR means the probability of something undesirable, i.e., death or disease progression. Results: The search identified more than 3992 studies, and 21 (3354 patients, median or mean age ranging from 36 to 78 years) were finally included. The risk of bias in the studies was low to medium. All included studies were diagnosed based on low muscle mass (LMM). Muscle mass was assessed mainly through imaging technologies, and different cut-offs were applied to determine LMM. The prevalence of sarcopenia was 44.5%, which could fluctuate by age. Subgroup analysis showed that older people had a higher sarcopenic rate than the non-elderly group. Sarcopenia resulted in an inferior prognosis [overall survival: HR 1.821, 95% CI 1.415-2.343; progression-free survival: HR 1.703, 95% CI 1.128-2.571). Conclusion: Sarcopenia has a prevalence of over 30% in malignant hematologic patients and is associated with a poorer prognosis. Future studies with a standardized sarcopenia diagnostic criterion were needed to investigate sarcopenia's prevalence and prognostic effects in hematologic malignancies.
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 | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".