MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413441564 · doi:10.7759/cureus.90304

Incidence and Clinical Characteristics of Respiratory Sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study

2025· article· en· W4413441564 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Urara Chiba, Tomoyuki Morisawa, Yota Kunieda, Kohei Kawamura, Tomokazu Takakura, Masakazu Saitoh, Kotaro Iwatsu, Tetsuya Takahashi, Toshiyuki Fujiwara

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSarcopeniaCross-sectional studyIncidence (geometry)Respiratory systemGerontologyPhysical therapyPediatricsInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the prevalence, characteristics, and associated factors of respiratory sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 369 community-dwelling older adults aged 65 years and above, living in Koto-ku, Tokyo, Japan. Measurements included body composition, physical function (grip strength, walking speed, and 5 chair-stand, 5CS, test), physical activity (the International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form), respiratory muscle strength (%Maximal Inspiratory Pressure, %MIP, and %Maximal Expiratory Pressure, %MEP), oral function (oral diadochokinesis, ODK; tongue pressure), cognitive function (Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Japanese), and health-related quality of life (the MOS 8-Item Short-Form Health Survey). Participants were classified into three mutually exclusive groups based on respiratory muscle strength and limb skeletal muscle mass. The Probable respiratory sarcopenia group (Probable group) included individuals with both reduced respiratory muscle strength (defined as both %MIP and %MEP values below 80%) and low limb skeletal muscle mass (defined as <7 kg/m² in men and <5.7 kg/m² in women, based on the Asian Working Group of Sarcopenia 2019). The Possible respiratory sarcopenia group (Possible group) included participants with reduced respiratory muscle strength alone but normal skeletal muscle mass. The Robust group comprised those with neither respiratory muscle weakness nor low skeletal muscle mass. The prevalence of each group was calculated separately. For further analysis, the Probable and Possible groups were combined into a single respiratory sarcopenia group, and the Robust group was used as the control. A t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, and chi-square test were used to compare the characteristics of each group. Logistic regression analysis was then performed to identify factors associated with the presence of respiratory sarcopenia. RESULTS: The prevalence of Probable respiratory sarcopenia was 3.3%, and that of Possible respiratory sarcopenia was 33.3%. Compared with the Robust group, the respiratory sarcopenia group exhibited significantly poorer physical function, including grip strength, gait speed, 5CS performance, physical activity, and oral function. Additionally, cognitive function was significantly lower in the respiratory sarcopenia group. Significant factors associated with respiratory sarcopenia included grip strength, 5CS, moderate physical activity, tongue pressure, and fat-free mass. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of Probable respiratory sarcopenia and Possible respiratory sarcopenia among community-dwelling older adults was 3.3% and 33.3%, respectively. Respiratory sarcopenia was characterized by significantly lower physical function (grip strength, gait speed, and 5CS), physical activity, oral function (ODK and tongue pressure), and cognitive function. Furthermore, grip strength, 5CS score, moderate physical activity, and tongue pressure were identified as significant factors associated with respiratory sarcopenia, suggesting that it requires a comprehensive evaluation including physical function, physical activity, oral function, and cognitive function.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.414 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207