phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | a construct whose membership is settled by percentage agreement among named experts, and whose boundary therefore sits at a threshold somebody chose— “Thresholds for agreement with statements were pre-specified by the steering committee as follows: low agreement (<70% respondents scoring ≥7), moderate agreement (70 to 80% respondents scoring ≥7) or strong agreement (>80% respondents scoring ≥7). Statements with strong agreement were accepted, and statements with low agreement were… | |
| claim-type | method— “Thresholds for agreement with statements were pre-specified by the steering committee as follows: low agreement (<70% respondents scoring ≥7), moderate agreement (70 to 80% respondents scoring ≥7) or strong agreement (>80% respondents scoring ≥7). Statements with strong agreement were accepted, and statements with low agreement were… | |
| method — evidence | — “Thresholds for agreement with statements were pre-specified by the steering committee as follows: low agreement (<70% respondents scoring ≥7), moderate agreement (70 to 80% respondents scoring ≥7) or strong agreement (>80% respondents scoring ≥7). Statements with strong agreement were accepted, and statements with low agreement were… | |
| object of study — evidence | — “The Global Leadership Initiative in Sarcopenia (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 sarcopenia assessment.” | |
| research question — evidence | — “The steering committee recognised that before any usable universal definition was derived, agreement on the concept of sarcopenia, including the elements that are key to defining the condition, was needed. Once these elements were agreed on, including these key framing concepts into a universal and usable definition would be facilitated [ 3… | |
| contribution — evidence | — “We agreed that the conceptual definition of sarcopenia comprises the concurrent combination of reduced muscle mass and muscle strength. We also found broad agreement that sarcopenia is a generalised disease of skeletal muscle; that prevalence of sarcopenia increases with age; that the definition of sarcopenia should not vary by setting of… | |
| mechanism | 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— “Furthermore, 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%)). Altogether, this suggests that a conceptual definition of sarcopenia… | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | 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— “Thresholds for agreement with statements were pre-specified by the steering committee as follows: low agreement (<70% respondents scoring ≥7), moderate agreement (70 to 80% respondents scoring ≥7) or strong agreement (>80% respondents scoring ≥7). Statements with strong agreement were accepted, and statements with low agreement were… | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | 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— “The overall support for inclusion of specific strength in the conceptual definition for sarcopenia 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. Therefore, in the next steps of GLIS, we will carefully consider… | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | 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— “Statement 5 ‘The conceptual definition of sarcopenia should include levels of severity of the disease’ was rejected with an agreement of 77.0% (mean score: 7.1 ± 2.7, n = 107 respondents). As statement 5 did not meet the acceptance threshold (>80%), the remaining four (50%) statements relating to ‘markers of the severity of sarcopenia’… | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | 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— “4. ‘ 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) ( Figure 2 ).” | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | AND 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.` 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— “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.” | mechanisms[5] |
| mechanism | 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— “In the first meetings, the steering committee explored the issues that had to be addressed in the search for a global consensus. It became evident that 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… | mechanisms[6] |
| mechanism | 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— “Sarcopenia also lacks a global and widely accepted definition that can be routinely used in clinical settings, even… | mechanisms[7] |
| mechanism | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | mechanisms[8] |
| mechanism | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | mechanisms[9] |
| mechanism | AND CONCEPTUAL AGREEMENT IS SEQUENCED BEFORE OPERATIONAL AGREEMENT, DELIBERATELY: `The next step in the coming years of GLIS is to develop an operational definition for clinical and research settings from the agreed-upon conceptual definition formed by the Delphi process.` Every other chain in this corpus revises criteria and thresholds together; this one splits meaning from measurement and does meaning first. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | mechanisms[10] |
| mechanism | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | mechanisms[11] |
| 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[0] |
| 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | `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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[0] |
| sense | `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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[1] |
| sense | `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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[2] |
| sense | `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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[3] |
| sense | `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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[4] |
| sense | `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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[5] |
| control | instructing the experts to ASSUME PERFECT, FEASIBLE ASSESSMENTS of each listed measure existed — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. — rules out answers skewed by which measurements happen to be accurate or available - the apparatus deciding the concept Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[0] |
| control | pre-specifying the agreement thresholds (<70% / 70-80% / >80%) before the survey ran — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. — rules out a threshold chosen after the votes were seen Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[1] |
| control | a glossary of sarcopenia terms published BEFORE the Delphi statements were voted on — partial Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. — rules out experts agreeing on a statement while meaning different things by its words - 'many different definitions of muscle quality were used in previous studies' Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[2] |
| weight | 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 — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[0] |
| weight | 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% — 0.85 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[1] |
| note | sarcopenia —causes→ impaired physical performance — 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 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[0] |
| relation | sarcopenia —causes→ impaired physical performance — accepted as an OUTCOME of sarcopenia at 97.9%, having been rejected as a COMPONENT of it at 79.4% in the same survey Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | sarcopenia —causes→ impaired physical performance — 0.95 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[0] |
| note | muscle-specific strength —part-of→ sarcopenia — '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 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| relation | muscle-specific strength —part-of→ sarcopenia — voted a COMPONENT of the conceptual definition at 80.8%, against a threshold of 80% Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | muscle-specific strength —part-of→ sarcopenia — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| note | lean mass —distinct-from→ muscle mass — 'SUBSTANTIAL DISAGREEMENT…' The concept was voted on with the instruments assumed perfect; this is the instrument that will actually be used Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| relation | lean mass —distinct-from→ muscle mass — lean mass is the available proxy and DOES NOT DIRECTLY MEASURE muscle mass Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | lean mass —distinct-from→ muscle mass — 0.95 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| outcome | control — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[0] |
| outcome | control — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[1] |
| outcome | control — partial Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[2] |
| limitation | THE ACCEPTED COMPONENTS OVERLAP AND THE PAPER SAYS SO: `A challenge that was not previously considered when developing the Delphi statements is how to consider these potentially overlapping components, where muscle mass and strength may be the same components included in the specific strength measure.` 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | AND THE PROXY THE OPERATIONAL DEFINITION WILL HAVE TO USE IS DISPUTED: `the SDOC found that there is substantial disagreement regarding the use of lean mass measured by DXA as a proxy of muscle mass: on one hand, lean mass is widely measured and clinically available; while on the other hand, it does not directly measure muscle mass, 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| quantity | 79.4% (rejected) — Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 97.9% (accepted) — Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 80.8% (accepted) — Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 77.0% (rejected; the four further statements on markers of severity were rejected with it) — Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 81.9% (above the 80% threshold, rejected anyway) — Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| value source note | quantity — 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] |
| quantity | 107 respondents; 52% response rate (107/206 invited); 100% retained across both rounds (107/107) — Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[5] |
| variable | muscle strength Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[0] |
| definition | sarcopenia Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | muscle-specific strength Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| concept | sarcopenia — not defined in this paper's own words; the condition whose conceptual definition this Delphi produced, fourteen years after EWGSOP's operational one Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | impaired physical performance — not defined in this paper's own words; the element moved out of the definition and into the consequences Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | muscle-specific strength — not defined in this paper's own words; strength standardised to muscle size - the component admitted by eight tenths of a percentage point Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | muscle mass — not defined in this paper's own words; the component accepted at 89.4%, and the one whose measurement the paper says drove the earlier disagreements Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | lean mass — not defined in this paper's own words; the DXA quantity used as a proxy for muscle mass, widely available and disputed Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
| concept | Delphi — not defined in this paper's own words; the two-round agreement procedure whose pre-specified thresholds decide membership of the concept Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[5] |
| concept | gold standard — not defined in this paper's own words; NOT a reference that exists and is deferred to, but ONE TO BE MANUFACTURED BY AGREEMENT - the stated output of harmonising six rival definitions into one Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[6] |
| concept | conceptual definition — not defined in this paper's own words; what this paper delivers, explicitly SEPARATED IN TIME from the operational definition that is promised for later years - agreement on meaning first, agreement on measurement after Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[7] |
| percentage agreement | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| claim type | method — a second reading reaching the same value; recorded: method Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | alternatives.claim_type |
| method | delphi-consensus — a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value; recorded: expert-consensus Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | alternatives.method |
| phenomenon | expert consensus on the conceptual definition of sarcopenia and its components — a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value; recorded: a construct whose membership is settled by percentage agreement among named experts, and whose boundary therefore sits a Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | alternatives.phenomenon |
| not machine-vouched | second reading of phenomenon — not-in-our-copy - The quote is not in the text we tag against, checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside - and THERE IS NO FETCHED COPY TO CHECK IT AGAINST: the source folder holds only PROVENANCE.txt, fulltext.PENDING.txt. This body carries no measurable character damage at all. What the quote was taken from is not something we hold. | alternatives.phenomenon |
| evidence status note | second reading of phenomenon — marked quote-not-in-current-staged-text - a DECLARED COMPOSITE (the composite-quote note): the whole string is not one span of the staged text; each part is verified there exactly once. | alternatives.phenomenon |
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.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824