Disfunción tiroidea como predictor de sarcopenia. Una revisión sistemática
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: Evaluar el papel de la disfunción tiroidea como predictor de sarcopenia en adultos mayores. Material y métodos: Revisión sistemática basada en PRISMA 2020. Se buscaron estudios observacionales en PubMed y EMBASE. La selección y extracción de datos fueron realizadas por dos revisores de forma independiente. La calidad metodológica se evaluó con la escala Newcastle-Ottawa. Resultados: Se incluyeron 27 estudios de adultos ≥65 años. Niveles bajos de FT3 se asociaron con mayor sarcopenia y fragilidad, mientras que FT4 alto aumentó el riesgo de sarcopenia. La relación TSH-sarcopenia fue variable, y el hipertiroidismo subclínico se vinculó con mayor fragilidad. Conclusiones: La función tiroidea influye en la sarcopenia en adultos mayores. Niveles bajos de T3 aumentan el riesgo de fragilidad, mientras que FT4 elevado contribuye a la pérdida muscular. La relación con TSH es variable. Factores como edad y comorbilidades deben considerarse, destacando la necesidad de criterios diagnósticos estandarizados y el monitoreo de T3 para prevenir la pérdida funcional.
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 | 0.049 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".