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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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.| second reading | alternatives | an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees |
| 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 |
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; 3 of 3 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 | A DEFINITION DECIDED BY VOTE, WITH EVERY VOTE PUBLISHED - 107 experts from 29 countries ranking statements about what sarcopenia IS, under a pre-specified agreement threshold, to harmonise six competing definitions into one 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 | which elements belong in the CONCEPT of sarcopenia, decided before and separately from how any of them would be measured 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 | the first global CONCEPTUAL definition of sarcopenia - reduced muscle mass and muscle strength, plus muscle-specific strength, with physical performance placed outside the definition as an outcome and severity excluded entirely 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 | a construct whose membership is settled by percentage agreement among named experts, and whose boundary therefore sits at a threshold somebody chose 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 | THE ELEMENT THAT MOVED FROM BEING PART OF THE THING TO BEING CAUSED BY IT: `impaired physical performance was accepted as an `OUTCOME` (Sarcopenia increases the risk of impaired physical performance (97.9%)) rather than a `COMPONENT` of sarcopenia (Physical performance should be part of the conceptual definition of sarcopenia (79.4%))`. In EWGSOP 2010 - paper 64 in this corpus - LOW PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE IS CRITERION 3, a diagnostic component. Fourteen years later the same element is a consequence. One relation, two of this corpus's edge types, and the vote that moved it is printed to one decimal place Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND THE THRESHOLD IS PRE-SPECIFIED, SO THE BOUNDARY OF THE CONCEPT IS A NUMBER SOMEBODY CHOSE: `low agreement (<70% respondents scoring >=7), moderate agreement (70 to 80%) or strong agreement (>80%). Statements with strong agreement were accepted, and statements with low agreement were REJECTED. Statements with moderate agreement were REINTRODUCED in the subsequent round until consensus was reached.` Muscle-specific strength entered at 80.8%; physical performance was excluded at 79.8%. ONE PERCENTAGE POINT OF A 107-PERSON SURVEY DECIDES WHAT THE DISEASE IS Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND THE PAPER SAYS THE MARGIN OUT LOUD: `The overall support for inclusion of specific strength ... was only slightly higher than our threshold for agreement - 80.8% supported its inclusion when the threshold is 80%, and this statement did not meet the threshold in the first round.` A component of the definition admitted by eight tenths of a point, on a second attempt, and the authors flag it as something the operational phase may undo Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND ONE STATEMENT WAS REJECTED BECAUSE A DIFFERENT ONE FAILED: `Statement 5 `The conceptual definition of sarcopenia should include LEVELS OF SEVERITY` was rejected with an agreement of 77.0% ... AS STATEMENT 5 did not meet the acceptance threshold (>80%), THE REMAINING FOUR STATEMENTS RELATING TO `MARKERS OF THE SEVERITY OF SARCOPENIA` were rejected.` The vote that removed them is not a vote about them Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND ONE OF THE FOUR HAD PASSED: `Physical performance should be A MARKER OF SEVERITY for the conceptual definition of sarcopenia. AGREEMENT: 81.9% (mean score: 7.6 +/- 2.4; answered = 93, skipped = 14).` Above the 80% threshold, and rejected anyway, because the statement it depended on scored 77.0%. A dependency between statements that the threshold rule does not model 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 INSTRUMENT WAS DELIBERATELY REMOVED FROM THE QUESTION: `Quotation withheld` A consensus body explicitly preventing the apparatus from shaping the concept - the inverse of leslie2022, where a construct is bounded by a filter pore. And they knew it had been happening Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | BECAUSE THE EARLIER DISAGREEMENTS WERE PARTLY ABOUT INSTRUMENTS AND PARTLY ABOUT WORDS: `some of the differences in previous definitions were related to disagreements on whether muscle mass should be included in the definition partly due to measurement issues of available techniques ..., whether physical function should be considered as part of the definition or as an outcome, and around the concept of muscle quality. In addition, some terms were not well defined in the literature ... the term `SARCOPENIA` had been used to refer to low muscle mass alone in some studies. For this reason, the first product of the GLIS initiative was A GLOSSARY OF TERMS.` A working group whose first output is a vocabulary, because the vocabulary was the obstacle Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND THE 2010 ADMINISTRATIVE GAP IS HALF CLOSED, IN THE OTHER ORDER: `Sarcopenia also lacks a global and widely accepted definition that can be routinely used in clinical settings, even though an ICD10-CM code for this condition exists.` cruz-jentoft2010 listed the missing ICD-9 code beside the missing definition. THE CODE ARRIVED FIRST - in one national modification, not in the classification itself Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND THE STANDARDS BODY TOLD THEM WHAT WOULD CLOSE THE REST: `The WHO was also contacted, and we were informed that a global definition would facilitate inclusion of sarcopenia in the International Classification of Diseases (at present it is only included in the Clinical Modification version of ICD).` The definition is being written partly IN ORDER TO obtain a code - the vocabulary and its administrative slot pulling on each other, stated by both parties Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | THE REASON TO AGREE ON A WORD IS ADMINISTRATIVE RECOGNITION: `the World Health Organization (WHO) has yet to include an ICD-10 code for sarcopenia ... A GLOBAL DEFINITION of sarcopenia would ease the adoption of an ICD-10 CODE by WHO, which, in turn, would increase clinical recognition of this condition worldwide.` The chain runs definition -> code -> recognition, and the paper states it in that order. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND CONCEPTUAL AGREEMENT IS SEQUENCED BEFORE OPERATIONAL AGREEMENT, DELIBERATELY: `Quotation withheld.` Every other chain in this corpus revises criteria and thresholds together; this one splits meaning from measurement and does meaning first. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | SIX DEFINITIONS AND THE REPAIR IS A SEVENTH BODY: `Several groups have proposed definitions of sarcopenia, including the AWGS, the ANZSSFR, the EWGSOP that issued guidelines in 2010 that were REVISED IN 2019; the FNIH Sarcopenia Project, the IWGS and the SDOC`. The response to six competing committees is to convene a global one - the same move ISAPP made for `prebiotic` after five definitions. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[11] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | THE ACCEPTED COMPONENTS OVERLAP AND THE PAPER SAYS SO: `Quotation withheld` Muscle-specific strength is strength standardised to size, so voting all three in may have voted the same two in twice - a defect in the definition discovered after the vote that produced it 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 | AND THE PROXY THE OPERATIONAL DEFINITION WILL HAVE TO USE IS DISPUTED: `the SDOC found that Quotation withheld, and its associations with sarcopenia-related outcomes (mortality, fractures, falls, disability) are weak or inconsistent.` The concept was defined with the instrument assumed perfect; the instrument is neither perfect nor agreed 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 | and the conceptual definition is explicitly NOT usable yet: `The next phase of GLIS will include the OPERATIONALIZATION of the newly developed conceptual definition` - so the paper defines the condition and defers every cut-off point, which is the exact reverse of cruz-jentoft2010, whose Table 5 is nothing but cut-off points 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 | and a 52% response rate with a European majority: `The GLIS included reasonable representation of men and women, and geography, although most of the respondents were from Europe. The total response rate of GLIS was 52% ... which could have been higher. Nevertheless, we retained 100% (107/107) of participants through both rounds`. Both conceded in the strengths paragraph 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 |
| controls | instructing the experts to ASSUME PERFECT, FEASIBLE ASSESSMENTS of each listed measure existed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: answers skewed by which measurements happen to be accurate or available - the apparatus deciding the concept · outcome: held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | pre-specifying the agreement thresholds (<70% / 70-80% / >80%) before the survey ran Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a threshold chosen after the votes were seen · outcome: held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | a glossary of sarcopenia terms published BEFORE the Delphi statements were voted on Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: experts agreeing on a statement while meaning different things by its words - 'many different definitions of muscle quality were used in previous studies' · outcome: partial | controls[2] | 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 | impaired physical performance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: impaired physical performance | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | muscle-specific strength Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: muscle-specific strength | concepts[2] | 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[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | lean mass Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lean mass | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Delphi Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Delphi | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | gold standard Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: gold standard | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | conceptual definition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conceptual definition | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | `sarcopenia` (GLIS 2024, CONCEPTUAL) - `the concurrent combination of reduced muscle mass and muscle strength`, plus muscle-specific strength; a generalised disease of skeletal muscle, potentially reversible, the same in clinic and research, and NOT varying by setting, age or condition 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` - IN the 2010 definition as diagnostic criterion 3, OUT of the 2024 one at 79.4%, and readmitted as an OUTCOME at 97.9% 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 | `muscle-specific strength` - `strength standardised to muscle size`; admitted to the definition at 80.8% against an 80% threshold, having failed round 1 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 | `conceptual definition` vs `operational definition` - GLIS separates them ON PURPOSE and produces only the first, deferring every measure and cut-off point to a later phase 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 | `sarcopenia` - SIX RIVAL DEFINITIONS, EACH WITH AN INSTITUTIONAL OWNER, ENUMERATED IN ONE PARAGRAPH: AWGS, ANZSSFR, EWGSOP (2010, revised 2019), the FNIH Sarcopenia Project, IWGS, and SDOC. Not a term with two senses - a term with six committees. 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 | `gold standard` - A THING TO BE BUILT, NOT FOUND: GLIS was formed `in an attempt to harmonise these competing definitions into one unifying common classification that would be used as the gold standard`. In lotvall2014 the gold standard is DENIED to exist; in doyle2019 it is AWARDED to an incumbent; here it is a DELIVERABLE. 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 |
| alternatives | claim_type: method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: method — note: A BLIND second reading by the project on 2026-08-25: the record's own claim type/method/phenomenon were not looked at until every value here was written and substring-verified. Not applied - a person decides. Sampling frame: the 504 staged records carrying no alternatives block, so this never re-measures the 202. All 11 records with 130+ tags were taken as a census and 19 more spread one per discipline across 22 disciplines - the dense non-neuroscience cell is the one the 202 do not contain (inside them, 94-100% of the densest bands are neuroscience; among these 11, one is)., | alternatives.claim_type | 0.6 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | method: delphi-consensus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: expert-consensus — note: A BLIND second reading by the project on 2026-08-25: the record's own claim type/method/phenomenon were not looked at until every value here was written and substring-verified. Not applied - a person decides. Sampling frame: the 504 staged records carrying no alternatives block, so this never re-measures the 202. All 11 records with 130+ tags were taken as a census and 19 more spread one per discipline across 22 disciplines - the dense non-neuroscience cell is the one the 202 do not contain (inside them, 94-100% of the densest bands are neuroscience; among these 11, one is)., | alternatives.method | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → the six competing regional definitions of sarcopenia - AWGS, ANZSSFR, EWGSOP (2010, revised 2019), FNIH, IWGS and SDOC - which GLIS was formed to harmonise into one classification Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → EWGSOP 2010's inclusion of physical performance as a diagnostic criterion, which this Delphi rejects as a component at 79.4% and readmits as an outcome at 97.9% Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | sarcopenia —causes→ impaired physical performance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: THE EDGE THAT REPLACED A part-of. EWGSOP 2010 made low physical performance diagnostic CRITERION 3 - part of the condition. GLIS 2024 puts the same element outside the definition and back in as a consequence: `impaired physical performance was accepted as an `OUTCOME` ... rather than a `COMPONENT` of sarcopenia`. The two readings differ by 18.5 percentage points in one survey of 107 people · the relation stated: accepted as an OUTCOME of sarcopenia at 97.9%, having been rejected as a COMPONENT of it at 79.4% in the same survey also in: sarcopenia · impaired physical performance | concept_edges[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | muscle-specific strength —part-of→ sarcopenia Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: 'WOULD INCLUDE…'. Weight 0.9: the paper's own phrase is 'part of the conceptual DEFINITION of sarcopenia', and this corpus can say that something is part of a THING but not that it is part of a DEFINITION - the same gap cruz-jentoft2010 exposed with 'sarcopenia is one of the elements of the proposed definition for cachexia'. Twice in two records · the relation stated: voted a COMPONENT of the conceptual definition at 80.8%, against a threshold of 80% also in: muscle-specific strength · sarcopenia | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | lean mass —distinct-from→ muscle mass Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: 'SUBSTANTIAL DISAGREEMENT…' The concept was voted on with the instruments assumed perfect; this is the instrument that will actually be used · the relation stated: lean mass is the available proxy and DOES NOT DIRECTLY MEASURE muscle mass also in: lean mass · muscle mass | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | impaired physical performance was accepted as an outcome (97.9%) rather than a component (79.4%) of sarcopenia 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 | pre-specified thresholds: over 80% agreement accepted, 70-80% reintroduced, under 70% rejected 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 | because statement 5 missed the 80% threshold (77.0%), the four severity-marker statements were rejected 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 | THE INSTRUMENT WAS DELIBERATELY REMOVED FROM THE QUESTION: `To avoid the issue that answers might be skewed by the accuracy and lack of currently available measurement methods, experts were asked to assume that perfect, feasible assessments of each listed measure existed` 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 | sarcopenia lacks a widely accepted clinical definition even though an ICD-10-CM code exists 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 | AND THE ACCEPTED COMPONENTS MAY COUNT THE SAME THING TWICE: `how to consider these potentially overlapping components, where muscle mass and strength may be the same components included in the specific strength measure` 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 concurrent combination of reduced muscle mass and muscle strength` ... `a generalised disease of skeletal muscle` ... `should not vary by setting of care, age or condition, or use (clinic vs. research)` ... `a potentially reversible disease` 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 | `strength standardised to muscle size` - `an attempt to blend measurements of muscle mass and strength in a single component`, admitted at 80.8% Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: muscle-specific strength | content_tags.definitions[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | below the pre-specified 80% threshold, so physical performance is not part of the condition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the same element, the same survey, as a consequence instead of a part Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | `only slightly higher than our threshold for agreement ... and this statement did not meet the threshold in the first round` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | `AS STATEMENT 5 did not meet the acceptance threshold (>80%), THE REMAINING FOUR (50%) STATEMENTS RELATING TO MARKERS OF THE SEVERITY OF SARCOPENIA WERE REJECTED` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | rejected because its parent statement scored 77.0% - the vote that removed it is not a vote about it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. value source note: THE VALUE DRAWS ON THE PAPER BEYOND THIS QUOTE: the 80% threshold is set in the methods ('strong agreement (>80%)'), not in this quote, and so is the reason the statement was still rejected. | content_tags.quantities[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | `although most of the respondents were from Europe` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the share of respondents scoring 7 or more on an 11-point Likert scale - the statistic that decides membership of the concept Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: percentage agreement | content_tags.statistics[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | accepted into the conceptual definition at 93.1%, the highest of the three components 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 |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
alternatives.phenomenon — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allowsWhat 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.