Prevalence of Sarcopenic Obesity in Elderly Population: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sarcopenic obesity (SO) is characterized by the simultaneous presence of both obesity and sarcopenia in the same individual, and it is associated with adverse health outcomes such as falls, hospitalization, functional disability, and mortality. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive analysis of the prevalence of SO in the elderly population through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the scientific literature. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and LILACS databases for observational studies published up to July 2023 on the prevalence of SO in individuals aged 65 years or older. Data were collected from the selected and included articles, including general study information, demographic characteristics of the samples, methods, and results. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) criteria. A random-effects model was applied for the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) of combined prevalence data, and the I-squared index (I²) was used to assess heterogeneity. Publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot and Egger's test. RESULTS: A total of 37 articles meeting the eligibility criteria were selected and included in this meta-analysis. Heterogeneity among the studies was observed, along with evidence of publication bias. Most studies were classified as having a high risk of bias. The pooled prevalence of SO in the elderly was 10% (95% CI: 8%-12%; I²: 99.10%, p<0.001). A similar result was observed after stratification by sex, with a prevalence of 10% in both men (95% CI: 8%-12%; I²: 97.46%, p<0.001) and women (95% CI: 8%-12%; I²: 98.72%, p<0.001). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses revealed that the study setting, criteria used for the diagnosis of obesity, and the risk of bias in the studies were potential factors contributing to the heterogeneity in the prevalence of SO in the elderly. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis indicated a significant prevalence of SO among the elderly population, with no difference by sex, highlighting SO as a substantial health problem in this population. These findings underscore the importance of interventions to reduce the occurrence of SO in the elderly.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".