Cited by 388Nutrition and Health in AgingBody Composition Measurement TechniquesFrailty in Older Adults

Cutpoints for low appendicular lean mass that identify older adults with clinically significant weakness

Open access
Cawthon, P. M., Peters, K. W., Shardell, M. D., McLean, R. R., Dam, T.-T. L., Kenny, A. M., Fragala, M. S., Harris, T. B. +7 more·2014·The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Low lean mass is potentially clinically important in older persons, but criteria have not been empirically validated. As part of the FNIH (Foundation for the National Institutes of Health) Sarcopenia Project, this analysis sought to identify cutpoints in lean mass by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry that discriminate the presence or absence of weakness (defined in a previous report in the series as grip strength <26kg in men and <16kg in women). METHODS: In pooled cross-sectional data stratified by sex (7,582 men and 3,688 women), classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was used to derive cutpoints for appendicular lean body mass (ALM) that best discriminated the presence or absence of weakness. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to quantify the strength of the association between lean mass category and weakness. RESULTS: In primary analyses, CART models identified cutpoints for low lean mass (ALM <19.75kg in men and <15.02kg in women). Sensitivity analyses using ALM divided by body mass index (BMI: ALMBMI) identified a secondary definition (ALMBMI <0.789 in men and ALMBMI <0.512 in women). As expected, after accounting for study and age, low lean mass (compared with higher lean mass) was associated with weakness by both the primary (men, odds ratio [OR]: 6.9 [95% CI: 5.4, 8.9]; women, OR: 3.6 [95% CI: 2.9, 4.3]) and secondary definitions (men, OR: 4.3 [95% CI: 3.4, 5.5]; women, OR: 2.2 [95% CI: 1.8, 2.8]). CONCLUSIONS: ALM cutpoints derived from a large, diverse sample of older adults identified lean mass thresholds below which older adults had a higher likelihood of weakness.

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 · 10.1093/gerona/glu023

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recommended cutpoint for appendicular lean body mass (measured with DXA) is 19.75 kg for men and 15.02 kg for women.

    “Efforts to create cutpoints for muscle mass and muscle strength from population studies (community-dwelling older adults) recommended cutpoint for grip strength of 26 kg for men vs. 16 kg for women, and for appendicular lean body mass (measured with DXA) of 19.75 kg for men vs. 15.02 kg for women (Alley et al., 2014; Cawthon et al., 2014).”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cawthon, P. M., Peters, K. W., Shardell, M. D., McLean, R. R., Dam, T.-T. L., Kenny, A. M., Fragala, M. S., Harris, T. B., Kiel, D. P., Guralnik, J. M., Ferrucci, L., Kritchevsky, S. B., Vassileva, M. T., Studenski, S. A., & Alley, D. E.
Affiliations
  • California Pacific Medical Center (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • University of Central Florida (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Wake Forest University (US)
  • Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Cawthon, P. M.
Venue
The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
Published
2014-04-14
Volume
69
Issue
5
Pages
567-575
ISSN
  • 1079-5006 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-535X
OpenAlex
W2099091257
Cited by
388
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 8 · 2012: 1
FWCI
23.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • The Journals of Gerontology Series A (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (P30 AG024827)
  • Amgen
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • National Institutes of Health (1u13ag041583-01, AG024827)
  • National Institute on Aging (1U13AG041583, AG 024827, P30AG024827)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
Keywords
appendicular lean mass, sarcopenia, muscle weakness, older adults, cut-off values, grip strength, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, body mass index, sex differences
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Sex Factors, Thinness, United States, Absorptiometry, Photon, Body Mass Index, Hand Strength, Muscle Weakness, Sarcopenia

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