↓ Skip to main content

What is the best adjustment of appendicular lean mass for predicting mortality or disability among Japanese community dwellers?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What is the best adjustment of appendicular lean mass for predicting mortality or disability among Japanese community dwellers?
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12877-017-0699-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rei Otsuka, Yasumoto Matsui, Chikako Tange, Yukiko Nishita, Makiko Tomida, Fujiko Ando, Hiroshi Shimokata, Hidenori Arai

Abstract

Age-related declines in skeletal muscle mass and strength, representing "sarcopenia," are a growing concern in aging societies. However, the prevalence of low muscle mass based on the height2-adjustment has been shown to be extremely low, and a more appropriate definition of low muscle mass is needed, particularly for Asian women. The aim of this study was to explore the most appropriate adjustment of appendicular lean mass (ALM) for predicting mortality or disability risk using ALM or any of 5 adjustments of ALM among community-dwelling Japanese. Subjects comprised 1026 men and 952 women between 40 and 79 years old at baseline (1997-2000) who participated in the National Institute for Longevity Sciences - Longitudinal Study of Aging, Japan. ALM (kg) and 5 adjusted indices of ALM (ALM/leg length, ALM/height, ALM/height2, ALM/weight, and ALM/body mass index [BMI]) were assessed at baseline. Disability was defined by long-term care insurance certification based on responses to a survey mailed in 2013, and death records were obtained as vital statistics until December 2014. Crude and adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios for mortality or disability by sex-stratified quintiles of each ALM index (ALM and adjusted ALM) or sarcopenia-related indices. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated with the multivariate-adjusted logistic regression model. Additionally, mixed-effects analyses were used to clarify the age-related ALM indices decline over 12 years (n = 1838). Crude Cox proportional hazard models and multivariate-adjusted logistic model (AUC) indicated that higher ALM and ALM/BMI in women, and higher ALM, ALM/leg length, ALM/height, and ALM/BMI in men were associated with lower risks for mortality or disability than ALM/height2. The mixed effect model indicated all ALM indices in men, and ALM, ALM/leg length, and ALM/height in women could better predict age-related lean muscle mass decline. Unadjusted ALM in women, and ALM/leg length, ALM/height, ALM/BMI, and ALM in men may be more appropriate for predicting future mortality or disability than ALM/height2. Considering the age-related muscle mass decline, unadjusted ALM would be the first variable to assess, regardless of sex, in this Japanese cohort study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 14%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 19 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Sports and Recreations 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Arts and Humanities 3 4%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 24 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,372,208
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#2,174
of 3,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,521
of 441,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#51
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.