Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 285

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 78 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Biomarkers of sarcopenia in clinical trials—recommendations from the International Working Group on Sarcopenia

Open access
Cesari, Matteo, Fielding, Roger A., Pahor, Marco, Goodpaster, Bret, Hellerstein, Marc, Van Kan, Gabor A., Anker, Stefan D., Rutkove, Seward, Vrijbloed, J. Willem, Isaac, Maria, Rolland, Yves, M'Rini, Christine, Aubertin-Leheudre, Mylène, Cedarbaum, Jesse M., Zamboni, Mauro, Sieber, Cornell C., Laurent, Didier, Evans, William J., Roubenoff, Ronenn, Morley, John E., Vellas, Bruno·2012·Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle

Abstract

Sarcopenia, the age‐related skeletal muscle decline, is associated with relevant clinical and socioeconomic negative outcomes in older persons. The study of this phenomenon and the development of preventive/therapeutic strategies represent public health priorities. The present document reports the results of a recent meeting of the International Working Group on Sarcopenia (a task force consisting of geriatricians and scientists from academia and industry) held on June 7–8, 2011 in Toulouse (France). The meeting was specifically focused at gaining knowledge on the currently available biomarkers (functional, biological, or imaging‐related) that could be utilized in clinical trials of sarcopenia and considered the most reliable and promising to evaluate age‐related modifications of skeletal muscle. Specific recommendations about the assessment of aging skeletal muscle in older people and the optimal methodological design of studies on sarcopenia were also discussed and finalized. Although the study of skeletal muscle decline is still in a very preliminary phase, the potential great benefits derived from a better understanding and treatment of this condition should encourage research on sarcopenia. However, the reasonable uncertainties (derived from exploring a novel field and the exponential acceleration of scientific progress) require the adoption of a cautious and comprehensive approach to the subject.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13539-012-0078-2

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 78 references

Cited by

See all 285

Metadata

Authors
Cesari, M., Fielding, R. A., Pahor, M., Goodpaster, B., Hellerstein, M., Van Kan, G. A., Anker, S. D., Rutkove, S., Vrijbloed, J. W., Isaac, M., Rolland, Y., M'Rini, C., Aubertin-Leheudre, M., Cedarbaum, J. M., Zamboni, M., Sieber, C. C., Laurent, D., Evans, W. J., Roubenoff, R., Morley, J. E., & Vellas, B.
Venue
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-08-03
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
181-190
ISSN
  • 2190-5991 (ISSN-L)
  • 2190-6009
OpenAlex
W2148428406
Cited by
285
References
78
FWCI
12.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Biomarkers of sarcopenia in clinical trials—recommendations from the International Working Group on Sarcopenia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s13539-012-0078-2
The paper
Cesari, M., Fielding, R. A., Pahor, M., Goodpaster, B., Hellerstein, M., Van Kan, G. A., Anker, S. D., Rutkove, S., Vrijbloed, J. W., Isaac, M., Rolland, Y., M'Rini, C., Aubertin-Leheudre, M., Cedarbaum, J. M., Zamboni, M., Sieber, C. C., Laurent, D., Evans, W. J., Roubenoff, R., . . . Vellas, B. (2012). Biomarkers of sarcopenia in clinical trials—recommendations from the International Working Group on Sarcopenia. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13539-012-0078-2

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.