Correlation of ultrasound-assessed muscle mass with muscle function during resistance training in the elderly: a systematic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Future research should prioritise more frequent and targeted assessments of specific muscles using both ultrasound and functional testing. This approach may provide clearer and more precise evidence of the relationship between muscle mass and functional capacity. By refining these assessment protocols, researchers can better understand the nuances of muscle adaptation and its impact on overall physical function. This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and Embase databases for relevant studies. Key search terms included 'aged', 'resistance training', 'musculoskeletal ultrasound', 'muscle quality', etc. Three independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, keywords and full texts. Data were extracted into tables, and the methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A qualitative analysis was performed to better assess the relationship between ultrasound-assessed muscle changes and observed changes in muscle function during resistance training in older people. The meta-analysis integrated data from different methodologies to account for heterogeneity and potential bias. Linear regression models were used to assess associations, and results were assessed based on the significance of their P values. Ultrasound (US) assessment plays a valuable role in monitoring structural and qualitative changes in skeletal muscle during resistance training. However, observed differences in results between studies suggest that factors such as participant age, duration of exercise, data collection methods and technical staff expertise may influence results. In addition, while US provides specific insight into individual muscles, functional assessments typically evaluate broader movement patterns, which may account for discrepancies between muscle-specific and overall functional outcomes. Further research is needed to reconcile these assessment methods for a more comprehensive understanding of muscle adaptation in older adults. A total of 7,577 articles were initially retrieved. After excluding irrelevant studies and those that did not meet the inclusion criteria, seven studies were selected for analysis. The primary data for the meta-analysis were the effect sizes of the correlations between muscle changes (assessed by ultrasound) and strength or functional capacity after resistance training in older adults. The meta-analysis showed weak correlations between muscle thickness (MT) (r = 0.058 [-0.32; 0.43], p = 0.126), cross-sectional area (CSA) (r = 0.054 [0.003; 0.11], p < 0.1) and echogenicity index (EI) (r = 0.047 [0.003; 0.06], p < 0.1) with muscle strength. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the relationship between ultrasound-assessed muscle changes and functional improvements observed during resistance training in older people. To determine the reliability of musculoskeletal ultrasound as an objective tool for monitoring changes in muscle function in response to resistance training interventions.
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 | 0.022 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".