↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic ultrasound estimates of muscle mass and muscle quality discriminate between women with and without sarcopenia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, October 2015
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
185 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
Diagnostic ultrasound estimates of muscle mass and muscle quality discriminate between women with and without sarcopenia
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2015.00302
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catheeja Ismail, Johannah Zabal, Haniel J. Hernandez, Paula Woletz, Heather Manning, Carla Teixeira, Loretta DiPietro, Marc R. Blackman, Michael O. Harris-Love

Abstract

Introduction: Age-related changes in muscle mass and muscle tissue composition contribute to diminished strength in older adults. The objectives of this study are to examine if an assessment method using mobile diagnostic ultrasound augments well-known determinants of lean body mass (LBM) to aid sarcopenia staging, and if a sonographic measure of muscle quality is associated with muscle performance. Methods: Twenty community-dwelling female subjects participated in the study (age = 43.4 ± 20.9 years; BMI: 23.8, interquartile range: 8.5). Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and diagnostic ultrasound morphometry were used to estimate LBM. Muscle tissue quality was estimated via the echogenicity using grayscale histogram analysis. Peak force was measured with grip dynamometry and scaled for body size. Bivariate and multiple regression analyses were used to determine the association of the predictor variables with appendicular lean mass (aLM/ht(2)), and examine the relationship between scaled peak force values and muscle echogenicity. The sarcopenia LBM cut point value of 6.75 kg/m(2) determined participant assignment into the Normal LBM and Low LBM subgroups. Results: The selected LBM predictor variables were body mass index (BMI), ultrasound morphometry, and age. Although BMI exhibited a significant positive relationship with aLM/ht(2) (adj. R (2) = 0.61, p < 0.001), the strength of association improved with the addition of ultrasound morphometry and age as predictor variables (adj. R (2) = 0.85, p < 0.001). Scaled peak force was associated with age and echogenicity (adj. R (2) = 0.53, p < 0.001), but not LBM. The Low LBM subgroup of women (n = 10) had higher scaled peak force, lower BMI, and lower echogenicity values in comparison to the Normal LBM subgroup (n = 10; p < 0.05). Conclusions: Diagnostic ultrasound morphometry values are associated with LBM, and improve the BMI predictive model for aLM/ht(2) in women. In addition, ultrasound proxy measures of muscle quality are more strongly associated with strength than muscle mass within the study sample.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 181 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 12%
Student > Master 21 11%
Student > Bachelor 17 9%
Researcher 15 8%
Student > Postgraduate 12 6%
Other 40 22%
Unknown 57 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 31%
Sports and Recreations 20 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 7%
Engineering 7 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 73 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 27 May 2016.
All research outputs
#3,181,447
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#1,699
of 13,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,312
of 284,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#15
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,603 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 284,657 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.