Energy and nutrient intake by people with and without sarcopenia diagnosed by the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: There is growing evidence that insufficient dietary intake is associated with sarcopenia. OBJECTIVE: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the energy and nutrient intakes by people with and without sarcopenia were compared using only the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2010 (EWGSOP1) and 2019 (EWGSOP2) consensus diagnostic criteria. DATA SOURCES: Only observational studies that compared energy and nutrient intake from food alone by individuals with and without sarcopenia were included. Studies were searched in the following databases: Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Lilacs, Ovid, and Scopus. The review followed the PRISMA checklist and submitted the protocol to PROSPERO. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by 2 authors independently. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. DATA ANALYSIS: A total of 8648 articles were identified and 12 were selected. Among individuals with sarcopenia, lower intakes of energy and some nutrients, mainly with antioxidant properties, were observed compared with those without sarcopenia. Meta-analyses showed that individuals with sarcopenia consume fewer calories/day than individuals without sarcopenia (n = 10 studies; standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.15; 95% confidence interval: -0.29, -0.01) diagnosed by EWGSOP1 and EWGSOP2. Individuals with sarcopenia consume less omega-3, folate, magnesium, phosphorus, selenium, zinc, and vitamins C, D, and E when compared with those without sarcopenia. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study suggest that insufficient intake of energy and nutrients with antioxidant potential may be associated with sarcopenia. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD 42020195698.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".