standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 10 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | the definition of sarcopenia itself - what the term should pick out, which variables identify it, and at what thresholds Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | whether a decade of evidence justified changing the 2010 definition, and if so which parameter should be primary Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | a revised operational definition in which muscle strength replaces muscle mass as the primary parameter, plus the cut-off points the 2010 consensus declined to give Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | sarcopenia - a progressive generalised skeletal muscle disorder, now classed as a muscle disease, carrying raised risk of falls, fractures, disability and death Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | expert-consensus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: expert-consensus | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | why the primary parameter changed: strength predicts adverse outcomes better than mass does, so putting it first is expected to speed up identification in practice - a change justified by predictive validity, not by new biology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: strength before mass | mechanisms[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | why quantity and quality are NOT primary despite being part of the definition - they are technically difficult to measure accurately, so the constraint on the definition is instrumentation rather than concept Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: technological limit | mechanisms[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | BIA does not measure muscle mass; it estimates it from whole-body conductivity using an equation calibrated against DXA in a specific population - so a BIA reading inherits both DXA's error and the reference population's demography Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: measurement chained on measurement | mechanisms[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the mechanism by which an incomplete definition damages a field: with no cut-off points advised, studies chose their own, and the resulting disputes are said to have hampered research and development Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: threshold silence | mechanisms[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | A REGIONAL FORK FIXED THE PARENT STANDARD AND THE PARENT ADOPTED THE FIX BACK: `Quotation withheld More recently, the Asian Working Group on Sarcopenia developed an EWGSOP-based consensus that specified cut-off points ... The cut-off points in the Asian consensus proved to be very useful ... Thus, EWGSOP2 has opted to provide recommendations for cut-off points.` A derived standard added what its parent left out, the addition worked, and the parent then took it back in - a fork and a merge in the history of one definition, both steps stated in one paragraph. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND THE THRESHOLDS ARE SCOPED TO A POPULATION IN THE SAME BREATH AS THEY ARE PUBLISHED: `The current EWGSOP recommendations focus on European populations and use of normative references (healthy young ... ) ... we recommend use of regional normative populations when available.` The numbers in Table 3 are offered as universal diagnostic criteria and qualified as regional in the surrounding prose - which is exactly the condition that produced the Asian fork. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the authors say their own cut-off points are ARBITRARY at this time, and that validated ones await normative data and predictive value against hard end-points Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the cut-offs are set for European populations against healthy-young-adult references at −2 SD, with −2.5 SD offered for a more conservative diagnosis - so the boundary is a choice on a continuum, not a natural break Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | round figures were preferred to accurate ones, deliberately, for ease of use Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | gait speed and strength depend on stature, so regional normative populations are needed and are not always available Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | different DXA instrument brands do not give consistent results, and DXA is the instrument advised for confirming the diagnosis in clinical practice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | MRI and CT are the gold standards for muscle quantity and cut-off points for low muscle mass are not yet well defined for them - the best instrument has no threshold Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | BIA prediction models belong to the populations they were derived in, and the recommended equation is based on older Europeans Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | no recommendation is made on whether to adjust muscle mass for body size, and the authors record that the choice between height-squared, weight and BMI is under debate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the recommended screening questionnaire has low-to-moderate sensitivity - it will mostly detect severe cases, so screening with it misses the mild ones the paper wants found early Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | sarcopenic obesity is declared outside the scope of the article while being acknowledged as a distinct condition with its own definitional work ongoing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the research-gap list is the authors' own: causes and life-course intervention points, risk identification, validated cut-offs, gender- and region-specific thresholds, muscle-quality indicators, the kinetics of loss, and which outcomes measure treatment response Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | two structured face-to-face meetings with literature searches between them, a circulated draft, email review by both groups, and a final poll of all members for agreement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the recommendations being the view of whoever wrote the draft - every member was polled on the final content, and the disagreement had somewhere to go before publication · outcome: held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | including the original EWGSOP members alongside newly recruited European researchers in a 16-member writing group and a 13-member extended group Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a revision made by a different set of people from the original, which would leave it open whether the definition changed because the evidence changed or because the committee did · outcome: held | controls[1] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| controls | review and endorsement by five independent scientific societies after completion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a single society's consensus being taken for the field's - the definition carries geriatrics, nutrition, osteoporosis and gerontology bodies behind it · outcome: held | controls[2] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| controls | setting cut-off points against normative references of healthy young adults at −2 standard deviations, with −2.5 SD available where a conservative diagnosis is wanted Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: each study picking its own threshold, which is the specific failure the authors attribute to the 2010 consensus having advised none · outcome: partial | controls[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | taking the Asian Working Group's EWGSOP-based consensus, which did specify cut-off points, as evidence that specifying them helps Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the decision to give thresholds being untested - another group had already done it and the result was reported as very useful for implementation · outcome: held | controls[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| controls | separating sarcopenia from frailty, sarcopenic obesity and malnutrition explicitly, each in its own subsection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the new definition absorbing its neighbours - frailty overlaps on grip strength and gait speed and is still held to be a different KIND of thing, a geriatric syndrome rather than a disease · outcome: held | controls[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | recording that other experts argue CT psoas measurement is not representative of overall sarcopenia, and that further studies are needed to verify or reject it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a method being adopted into the consensus on the strength of its convenience - the objection is printed rather than resolved · outcome: held | controls[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | sarcopenia Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sarcopenia | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | muscle strength Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: muscle strength | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | muscle mass Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: muscle mass | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | muscle quality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: muscle quality | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | physical performance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: physical performance | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | grip strength Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: grip strength | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | chair stand test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chair stand test | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | gait speed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: gait speed | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | DXA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: DXA | concepts[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | BIA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: BIA | concepts[9] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | SARC-F Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: SARC-F | concepts[10] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | anthropometry Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: anthropometry | concepts[11] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | cut-off points Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cut-off points | concepts[12] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | frailty Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: frailty | concepts[13] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | malnutrition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: malnutrition | concepts[14] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | ageing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ageing | concepts[15] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | muscle disease Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: muscle disease | concepts[16] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | geriatric syndrome Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: geriatric syndrome | concepts[17] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Asian Working Group on Sarcopenia Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Asian Working Group on Sarcopenia | concepts[18] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | cut-off points → sarcopenia Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. A DEFINITION DAMAGED THE FIELD BY WHAT IT LEFT OUT. The 2010 consensus advised no cut-off points, and the paper says the resulting disputes HAMPERED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT through lack of study consistency. The relation is between an ABSENCE in a definition and harm to a research literature, and there is no edge type for it - 'causes' would need the 'from' endpoint to be the missing thresholds, which are not a thing that existed | unhoused_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| unhoused_relations | SARC-F → sarcopenia Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. A SCREEN THAT MISSES WHAT THE PAPER WANTS FOUND. SARC-F has low-to-moderate sensitivity and very high specificity, so it 'will mostly detect severe cases' - and the stated purpose of the whole revision is EARLY detection. 'operationalised-as' asserts the instrument measures the construct; the true relation is that it measures one end of it, and the schema has no way to say which end | unhoused_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| senses | sarcopenia - THREE DATED SENSES, ALL THREE NAMED IN THIS ONE SENTENCE. Before 2010 the term meant low muscle MASS alone. EWGSOP 2010 added muscle FUNCTION, which the authors call `a major change at that time`. EWGSOP2 2018 puts muscle STRENGTH at the forefront because strength predicts adverse outcomes better than mass does. A study citing `sarcopenia` without a date is citing one of three different populations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | physical performance - ONE VARIABLE, THREE ROLES, IN ONE SENTENCE. It was part of the core definition; other groups used it as an OUTCOME MEASURE, which makes it a dependent variable rather than a criterion; EWGSOP2 now uses it to grade SEVERITY. The same measurement is a definiens, an outcome and a severity scale depending on whose paper you are reading Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | probable sarcopenia versus confirmed sarcopenia - A TWO-STAGE DIAGNOSIS AND THE STAGES REQUIRE DIFFERENT EQUIPMENT. Low strength alone makes it PROBABLE, which a dynamometer can establish anywhere; CONFIRMED needs muscle quantity or quality, which needs DXA, BIA, CT or MRI. So a prevalence figure depends on what machines the study had, and the design makes that explicit rather than hiding it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | muscle quality - A RELATIVELY NEW TERM WITH FOUR INCOMPATIBLE OPERATIONALISATIONS LISTED IN ONE PARAGRAPH: fat infiltration and attenuation on MRI or CT, the ratio of strength to appendicular skeletal muscle mass, the ratio to muscle volume, and BIA-derived phase angle. The paper says outright there is no universal consensus on assessment. Two papers reporting `muscle quality` may share no measurement at all Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | cut-off point, in EWGSOP2 - A ROUND NUMBER CHOSEN FOR USABILITY, and the paper says so: `we opted to use round figures, with the confidence that the minor reduction in accuracy will be overcome by ease of use`. Grip strength <27 kg and <16 kg are not measured boundaries, they are −2 SD against a young reference, rounded Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | acute versus chronic sarcopenia - A NEW DISTINCTION MADE ON DURATION ALONE, at six months, and made in order to change BEHAVIOUR rather than to describe biology: the point is to force periodic reassessment so the rate of change is visible. A category defined by a clock Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → EWGSOP's own 2010 definition, which added muscle function to definitions based only on low muscle mass Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. note: the relation is to the AUTHORS' OWN earlier consensus, and the paper is explicit that the 2010 version was itself a major change to what came before it - so this is the third position in a documented sequence, not a first revision | claim_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | qualifies → the pre-2010 definitions of sarcopenia based only on detection of low muscle mass Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. note: AUDIT CHANGED THIS FROM 'contradicts'. Mass is not rejected here and the paper never says the old criterion was wrong - mass is DEMOTED, from the primary parameter to the confirming one, on evidence that strength predicts adverse outcomes better. It still appears in the 2018 definition as criterion 2. A demotion is a qualification | claim_relations[1] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → the Asian Working Group on Sarcopenia's EWGSOP-based consensus, which specified cut-off points and was found useful for implementation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | distinguishes-from → Fried and co-workers' physical phenotype of frailty, which overlaps sarcopenia on grip strength, gait speed and weight loss Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | distinguishes-from → the proposal that low muscle mass become part of the definition of malnutrition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. note: the same measurement entering a SECOND definition, and the paper marks the difference by what is absent - low fat mass is usually present in malnutrition and not necessarily in sarcopenia | claim_relations[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → expert groups worldwide who have published complementary definitions of sarcopenia in the intervening decade Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. note: re-cut in the audit onto the sentence that actually says it. And the word is the paper's own: COMPLEMENTARY definitions, not competing ones - so the term had at least three more senses in circulation while this revision was being written | claim_relations[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → the Asian Working Group on Sarcopenia's EWGSOP-based consensus, which specified cut-off points the original EWGSOP paper omitted Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. note: The direction is worth recording: the ASIAN group derived from EWGSOP, and EWGSOP2 then cites the derived work's success as its reason to change. Influence running from the fork back to the parent. | claim_relations[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | sarcopenia —is-a→ muscle disease Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: the reclassification is itself one of the paper's changes - and it is what the ICD-10 code follows from, so the ontological move has a billing consequence also in: sarcopenia · muscle disease | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | frailty —is-a→ geriatric syndrome Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 also in: frailty · geriatric syndrome | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | sarcopenia —distinct-from→ frailty Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: and the distinction is made at the level of KIND, not of degree: a disease against a syndrome, even though both are diagnosed partly by grip strength and gait speed also in: sarcopenia · frailty | concept_edges[2] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | sarcopenia —distinct-from→ malnutrition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.85 · note: the discriminator the paper offers is an ABSENCE - low fat mass is usually present in malnutrition and not necessarily in sarcopenia. The shared feature, low muscle mass, is being proposed as part of the malnutrition definition too also in: sarcopenia · malnutrition | concept_edges[3] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | muscle strength —operationalised-as→ grip strength Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: and the paper is careful about the warrant: grip correlates only MODERATELY with strength elsewhere in the body and is called a surrogate
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: the section is headed 'Muscle strength' (immediately before the span). also in: muscle strength · grip strength | concept_edges[4] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | muscle strength —operationalised-as→ chair stand test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.8 · note: the paper's own hedge is in the tag: the test needs endurance as well as strength, so it is 'a qualified but convenient measure'
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'a ... measure of strength', not 'muscle strength'. also in: muscle strength · chair stand test | concept_edges[5] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | muscle mass —operationalised-as→ DXA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.85 · note: weight below 1.0 because the same quote that establishes the operationalisation says different DXA brands disagree also in: muscle mass · DXA | concept_edges[7] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | muscle mass —operationalised-as→ BIA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.7 · note: the weakest of the four and deliberately so: BIA does not measure mass, it estimates it from conductivity through an equation calibrated against DXA. The chain is conductivity -> equation -> DXA -> mass also in: muscle mass · BIA | concept_edges[8] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | ageing —causes→ sarcopenia Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.85 · note: and the edge is exactly as strong as the residual category allows - 'primary' means no OTHER cause was found, which is a diagnosis of exclusion rather than a demonstrated mechanism
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but sarcopenia is DEFINED as primary when ageing is the only evident cause; causes[increases] is loose. also in: ageing · sarcopenia | concept_edges[9] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | sarcopenia —causes→ frailty Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.8 also in: sarcopenia · frailty | concept_edges[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | muscle strength replaces muscle mass as the primary parameter, because strength predicts adverse outcomes better Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the diagnosis becomes two-stage: low strength = PROBABLE sarcopenia; low muscle quantity or quality CONFIRMS it; adding low physical performance makes it SEVERE Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | physical performance is demoted from definitional criterion to severity grader Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | sarcopenia is reclassified as a muscle disease and now carries an ICD-10-MC diagnosis code billable in some countries Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | two new subcategories on duration alone: acute under six months, chronic at six months or more Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | sarcopenia is no longer treated as beginning in old age - development is now recognised to begin earlier in life with causes beyond ageing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the 2010 consensus advised no cut-off points and the resulting disputes are said to have hampered research and development in the field Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | sarcopenia = a progressive and generalised skeletal muscle disorder associated with increased likelihood of falls, fractures, physical disability and mortality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sarcopenia | content_tags.definitions[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the 2018 operational definition in three criteria: low muscle strength, low muscle quantity or quality, low physical performance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sarcopenia | content_tags.definitions[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | primary sarcopenia = no cause other than ageing is evident; secondary = other causal factors are present Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: primary sarcopenia | content_tags.definitions[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | muscle quality = micro- and macroscopic changes in muscle architecture and composition, AND muscle function delivered per unit of muscle mass - two senses in one sentence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: muscle quality | content_tags.definitions[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | physical performance = objectively measured whole-body function related to locomotion, involving nervous function and balance as well as muscle Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: physical performance | content_tags.definitions[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the recommended pathway, Find cases - Assess - Confirm - Severity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Find-Assess-Confirm-Severity | content_tags.definitions[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | cut-off points are set at −2 standard deviations below a healthy-young-adult reference mean, with −2.5 SD offered for a more conservative diagnosis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | and then rounded, deliberately, trading accuracy for ease of use Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the authors state that some of their own cut-off points are arbitrary at this time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | SARC-F: low-to-moderate sensitivity, very high specificity - it will mostly detect severe cases Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | hospitalised older adults with sarcopenia on admission were more than 5-fold more likely to incur higher hospital costs; Czech community data put direct healthcare costs more than 2-fold higher Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | muscle strength - the primary parameter, measured by grip strength or chair stand Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: muscle strength | content_tags.variables[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | muscle quantity and quality - the confirming parameter, measured by DXA, BIA, CT or MRI, and held back from primacy by technological limits rather than by concept Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: muscle quantity/quality | content_tags.variables[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | physical performance - the severity grader, measured by gait speed, SPPB, TUG or the 400-m walk Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: physical performance | content_tags.variables[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.