ArticleEuropean geriatric medicine2026
Enhancing the accuracy of bioimpedance-derived appendicular skeletal muscle mass in aged adults through machine learning.
Article in European geriatric medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAppendicular Skeletal Muscle Mass (ASMM) estimation via Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA) is a high-quality and bedside-accessible method. However, its accuracy is limited in comorbid populations, and determining the degree of error at the bedside remains a challenge. This study evaluates the application of Machine Learning (ML) algorithms as a decision-support layer to identify patients for whom the BIA-derived ASMM value is accurate.
methodsThis cross-sectional study included 701 participants aged ≥65 years (550 healthy subjects, 151 outpatients). ASMM measured by Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry served as the reference. An absolute error ≤1.14 kg (the original equation's standard error) defined accurate estimation. Five algorithms-Extreme Gradient Boosting, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest, Logistic regression, and Neural Networks-were trained using three hierarchical sets of predictors: (1) anthropometric and bioimpedance variables, (2) model 1 plus handgrip strength, and (3) model 2 plus anthropometric circumferences (arm, waist, and calf) and knee height.
resultsEstimation error was minimal in healthy subjects but markedly higher in outpatients (median absolute difference 0.81 vs. 2.37 kg, p<0.001). Accurate estimates dropped from 62.4% in healthy individuals to 25.2% in outpatients. Discriminative performance improved progressively with each predictor set. In Set 3, SVM achieved the highest cross-validation Area Under the Curve (0.813) and a test AUC of 0.867, with an accuracy of 0.70.
conclusionsIntegrating ML into BIA-based muscle assessment enables clinicians to quantify the reliability of individual ASMM estimates, even in patients with comorbidities. This approach provides a standardized framework for accepting or rejecting bedside estimations, enhancing clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42663809What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.