Multidimensional Frailty and Sarcopenia in Aging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Their Reciprocal Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of sarcopenia is associated with an increased likelihood of multidimensional (physical, cognitive, psychological, social) frailty in older patients.Two researchers independently extracted data, including first author, publication year, study type, sample size, gender, mean age of participants, sarcopenia diagnostic criteria, frailty diagnostic type, measurement tools, 95% CI (adjusted for the maximum confounding factor), and adjusted variables. The quality of each study was assessed using the bias risk assessment tool recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Two researchers independently conducted the quality assessments, and any discrepancies were resolved through discussion. If consensus could not be reached, a third reviewer was consulted to make the final decision. We summarized the descriptions of the original studies using tables and forest plots based on frailty and sarcopenia.
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 | 0.012 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".