Relationship of irisin and apelin levels with sarcopenia and body composition in community-dwelling older adults: a paired case–control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Irisin and apelin levels continue to decrease with age, and although many previous studies have explored their association with sarcopenia and body composition, there is still a paucity of evidence relating to them in community-dwelling elderly populations. The aim of this study was to provide new evidence for the association of irisin and apelin with sarcopenia in older adults. This case–control study included 80 individuals with sarcopenia and 80 individuals without sarcopenia. The definition of sarcopenia was based on the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2019 criteria. Plasma levels of irisin and apelin were measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Conditional logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. The sarcopenia group exhibited significantly lower levels of irisin (73.75 ± 30.97 ng/mL vs. 131.15 ± 88.38 ng/mL, p < 0.001) and apelin (21.51 ± 14.89 ng/mL vs. 27.87 ± 14.41 ng/mL, p = 0.007) compared to the control group. Increased levels of irisin (OR, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.97–0.99) and apelin (OR, 0.97, 95% CI, 0.95–0.99) were associated with a decreased risk of sarcopenia. In women, irisin was positively associated with body mass index, intracellular water (ICW), extracellular water (ECW), total water (TW), protein, mineral, fat, fat-free mass, skeletal muscle mass (SMM), percentage body fat, waist circumference, visceral fat area, and basal metabolic rate. Apelin was positively associated with ICW, ECW, TW, protein, and SMM (all p < 0.05). In men, positive correlations were found between irisin, apelin, and handgrip strength (all p < 0.05). Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that irisin and apelin had moderate predictive power in identifying sarcopenia. Plasma irisin and apelin were lower than in controls in elderly patients with sarcopenia, and elevated levels of irisin and apelin were associated with a reduced risk of sarcopenia. In addition, irisin and apelin levels are associated with body composition and irisin showed a stronger ability to predict sarcopenia in women.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".