↓ Skip to main content

Measurement of muscle health in aging

Overview of attention for article published in Biogerontology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
35 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
199 Mendeley
Title
Measurement of muscle health in aging
Published in
Biogerontology, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10522-017-9697-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Francis, Mark Lyons, Mathew Piasecki, Jamie Mc Phee, Karen Hind, Philip Jakeman

Abstract

Muscle health is a critical component in the struggle against physical frailty and the efforts to maintain metabolic health until the limit of chronological age. Consensus opinion is to evaluate muscle health in terms of muscle mass, strength and functional capability. There has been considerable variability in the components of muscle health which have been investigated in addition to variability in the tools of assessment and protocol for measurement. This is in stark contrast to the validated measurement of bone health across the adult life span. The purpose of this review was to identify indices of muscle mass, strength and functional capability most responsive to change with ageing and where possible to provide an estimate of the rate of change. We suggest lean tissue mass (LTM) or skeletal muscle (SM) is best evaluated from the thigh region due to its greater responsiveness to ageing compared to the whole body. The anterior compartment of the thigh region undergoes a preferential age-related decline in SM and force generating capacity. Therefore, we suggest that knee extensor torque is measured to represent the force generating capacity of the thigh and subsequently, to express muscle quality (strength per unit tissue). Finally, we suggest measures of functional capability which allow participants perform to a greater maximum are most appropriate to track age-related difference in functional capacity across the adult lifespan. This is due to their ability encompass a broad spectrum of abilities. This review suggests indices of muscular health for which reference ranges can be generated across the lifespan.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 199 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 15%
Researcher 25 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 11%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 36 18%
Unknown 59 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 11%
Sports and Recreations 20 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Other 27 14%
Unknown 73 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 25 April 2017.
All research outputs
#1,851,101
of 24,717,692 outputs
Outputs from Biogerontology
#63
of 704 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,498
of 313,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biogerontology
#3
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,717,692 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 704 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
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 313,820 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.