MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7023807926

Prevalence and Diagnostic Strategies for Sarcopenia in Menopausal and Non-Menopausal Women: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study

2025· article· en· W7023807926 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSarcopeniaAnthropometryPostmenopausal womenBody mass indexEpidemiologyObesityWaistHealth surveillance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Miaoyuan Li,1,2,* Xuewen Yan,3,* Rongshun Wu,4 Yanting Liao,5 Jing Zhang,3 Yufang Ye,3 Chenxia Xu6 1The First Clinical Medical College of Jinan University, Guangzhou, 510280, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Urology, Zhongshan People’s Hospital, Zhongshan, 528400, People’s Republic of China; 3Women’s Health Department, Boai Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan, 528400, People’s Republic of China; 4Department of Critical Care, Zhongshan People’s Hospital, Zhongshan, 528400, People’s Republic of China; 5Gynecology Department, Boai Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan, 528400, People’s Republic of China; 6Prenatal Diagnosis Center, Boai Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan, 528400, People’s Republic of China*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Chenxia Xu, Prenatal Diagnosis Center, Boai Hospital of Zhongshan, No. 6 Chenggui Road, East District, Zhongshan, Guangdong, 528400, People’s Republic of China, Email xuchenxia709@foxmail.comObjective: This study aimed to compare the prevalence of sarcopenia between postmenopausal and premenopausal women and evaluate the diagnostic performance of various screening methods combining anthropometric measurements and functional assessments.Methods: A total of 1630 women (794 postmenopausal, 836 premenopausal) were included. Data on upper arm circumference (AC), calf circumference (CC), and SARC-F questionnaire scores were collected. ROC curve analysis was performed to assess the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of individual and combined diagnostic models.Results: The overall prevalence of sarcopenia was 6.44%, with a higher prevalence in postmenopausal women (7.43%) than in premenopausal women (5.50%). Sarcopenic individuals had lower BMI and poorer functional performance. Among postmenopausal women, the SARC-F + CC combination demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 91.2), while in premenopausal women, the SARC-F + AC model was most effective (AUC = 85.53). The SARC-F + CC combination showed the best sensitivity (89.0%) and specificity (75.0%) across all participants.Conclusion: Sarcopenia is more prevalent in postmenopausal women, with menopause identified as a key risk factor. Combining SARC-F with calf circumference enhances diagnostic accuracy and is recommended for early screening in primary healthcare settings to facilitate timely interventions and improve patient outcomes.Keywords: sarcopenia, menopause, non-menopausal, prevalence, diagnostic methods, upper arm circumference, calf circumference, SARC-F questionnaire

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.581
Teacher spread0.384 · 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 venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207