Alterações da função pulmonar e da força muscular respiratória em pacientes com sarcopenia primária
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sarcopenia is characterized by progressive and generalized loss of skeletal muscle strength, accompanied by reduced muscle mass and adverse effects. The impact of sarcopenia on lung function and respiratory muscle strength, independent of the normal aging process, is currently not well understood. Objective: To synthesize the evidence obtained by comparing changes in pulmonary function in individuals with and without sarcopenia. Materials and methods: In November 2020, searches were conducted at PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Library with a strategy related to sarcopenia, pulmonary function and respiratory muscle strength described in the supplementary documents (tables 1 to 3). Studies with individuals without respiratory disease and outcome for the effect of sarcopenia on pulmonary function and/or respiratory muscle strength were included; studies without the diagnosis of sarcopenia. The risk of bias was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) version, adapted for cross-sectional studies. The difference of weighted means (WMD) of fvc (%) and FEV1 (%) with a 95% confidence interval was calculated. The random effects model was adopted with the Cochrane's Q test (P< 0.05) and the I2 test. Results: 5018 studies were found; 6 were selected for systematic review and 2 studies for meta-analysis. There was a reduction in FCV (%) in the group with sarcopenia, in relation to controls (WMD, -4.69; 95% IC, - 5,50 to -3,88; I2 = 1,48%). VEF1 (%) showed no difference between individuals with and without sarcopenia (WMD, -5.30; 95% IC, -14.39 to -3.80; I2 = 94.66%). Besides the small number of publications on the subject, there was a lack of detailed studies of pulmonary function, with measurements of total lung capacity, residual volume and mechanical characteristics of the respiratory system. Additionally, heterogeneity of methods and criteria for the diagnosis of sarcopenia was evident in this review, Conclusion: Primary sarcopenia compromises lung function, reducing the vital capacity of the elderly and, probably, causing a decrease in maximal respiratory mouth pressures.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".