Development and external validation of a practical diagnostic support tool, ‘ABC2-Screener’, to predict sarcopenia among patients on maintenance haemodialysis: A multicentre cross-sectional study ======================================================================================================================================================================================================= * Masatoshi Matsunami * Tetsuro Aita * Tsukasa Kamitani * Yu Munakata * Atsuro Kawaji * Hiroshi Kuji * Tomo Suzuki * Noriaki Kurita ## Abstract **Background and hypothesis** Sarcopenia is common in patients undergoing maintenance haemodialysis (MHD); however, the current diagnostic support tools for sarcopenia are difficult to implement in dialysis clinics. This study aimed to develop a clinically friendly screening tool to predict sarcopenia using ubiquitous clinical data. **Methods** This cross-sectional multicentre study enrolled 373 and 129 patients undergoing MHD in the derivation and external validation cohorts, respectively. The Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia diagnostic criteria were used as a sarcopenia reference standard. Candidate predictors, such as age, sex, body mass index, routine blood tests, and the one-item Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) version 2.0, were used to develop an original web-based model and a paper-based point score system using backward elimination selection. The two tools were completed using optimism-corrected regression coefficients for each variable, derived by bootstrapping. Their performance was evaluated by examining the discrimination and calibration in the two cohorts. **Results** In total, 98 (26.3%) and 44 (34.1%) patients in the derivation and validation cohorts were diagnosed with sarcopenia, respectively. For internal validation, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for the original model and the point score system were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96– 0.98) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93–0.97), respectively. Calibration plots for the original model showed excellent agreement between the predicted and observed probabilities. In contrast, the point-score-based model underestimated sarcopenia in the moderate-risk range. For external validation, the original model achieved an AUROC of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95–1.00), while the point score system achieved an AUROC of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87–0.96). The calibration plots for both models showed similar performances to those of the internal validation. **Conclusion** In patients undergoing MHD, our practical diagnostic support tool ‘the ABC2-Screener’ has good discrimination and calibration abilities and can be easily used at any medical facility. ## Introduction Patients undergoing maintenance haemodialysis (MHD) exhibit a high prevalence of sarcopenia owing to their exposure to chronic inflammatory conditions (1, 2), metabolic acidosis (3), malnutrition (4, 5), and inactivity (3, 6). In addition, the increased risk of fractures (7), cardiovascular events (8), and death (5, 9) associated with concomitant sarcopenia requires the need for accurate identification of sarcopenia among patients undergoing haemodialysis (6). Sarcopenia is diagnosed on the basis of a decrease in skeletal muscle mass, muscle strength, and/or physical performance (10, 11). Presently, special equipment such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) are required to determine skeletal muscle mass. However, these devices are expensive and not available in all haemodialysis facilities. Furthermore, DXA has disadvantages such as radiation exposure. Consequently, there is a growing need for simple screening methods for sarcopenia that can be easily implemented in dialysis facilities regularly attended by patients. However, evidence to address this issue is insufficient. Several studies on clinical prediction rules have been conducted to screen for sarcopenia in patients undergoing dialysis. However, many of these are nomogram-based models (12–14) and may not be preferred in clinical practice because of the complexity at first sight and inaccuracies associated with translation to final outcomes (15, 16). Additionally, in previously reported prediction rules, predictor variables included grip strength, a component of the criteria for diagnosing sarcopenia (14, 17), and irisin and fat-free mass index, which are not measured in the usual course of care (17). Therefore, there is a need for a reliable method to screen for sarcopenia in dialysis care settings based on data available in routine dialysis care, without performing examinations required for diagnosing sarcopenia. To address this issue, we conducted a multicentre cross-sectional study to develop and externally validate the ABC2-Screener, a simple and reliable diagnostic support tool for predicting sarcopenia in patients undergoing maintenance haemodialysis. To ensure applicability in dialysis facilities, we focused on variables obtained in usual care processes (age, sex, body mass index [BMI], and routinely performed blood laboratory tests) and a 1-item Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) (18,19), which rates frailty status based on clinician judgment. In addition, we aimed to present two versions of the ABC2-Screener: a paper-based point-scoring system and a user-friendly web-based programme. ## Materials and Methods ### Setting and Subjects This multicentre cross-sectional study was conducted at four medical facilities providing outpatient haemodialysis services (Kameda Medical Center, Awa Regional Medical Center, Chikuseikai Munakata Clinic, and Munakata Clinic). The subjects were adult patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent maintenance haemodialysis (three times a week) for ≥ 3 months. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) a history of pacemaker implantation or arthroplasty that rendered BIA measurement invalid or (2) a history of lower limb amputation, hemiplegia, or numbness due to carpal tunnel syndrome, which makes BIA measurement difficult. A total of 502 patients were included in this study. The derivation set (n=373) included patients from two medical facilities (Kameda Medical Center and Munakata Clinic). The external validation set (n=129) included the remaining two medical facilities (Awa Regional Medical Center and Chikuseikai Munakata Clinic) (Figure 1). ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/01/17/2024.01.17.24301264/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/17/2024.01.17.24301264/F1) Figure 1. Flowchart of patient recruitment in this study. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethical Review Board of Fukushima Medical University (number: ippan2021-292). All the patients signed an informed consent form. Data were collected between April 2022 and February 2023. ### Reference standard: diagnosis of sarcopenia The diagnostic criteria recommended by the 2019 Asian Sarcopenia Working Group (AWGS), which includes loss of muscle mass and decrease in muscle strength or physical performance, was used (11). To assess muscle strength, handgrip strength was measured before the haemodialysis session using an electronic handgrip meter (TKK 5101 Grip-D; Takei Rika Kikai Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). The measurement was performed by providing maximal isometric contraction with the patient in a sitting position with the shoulder joint adducted, the elbow joint flexed at 90°, and the forearm and wrist in a neutral position. The measurements were repeated twice on each side and the average of the highest values on each side was recorded. The cut-off values for low muscle strength were < 28.0 kg for men and < 18.0 kg for women (11). Height-adjusted appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM) was measured 30 min after the haemodialysis session using multifrequency BIA (MLT-550N; Toray Medical, Inc., Tokyo, Japan) (20, 21). Based on the same analytical principle as the MLT-550N used in this study, fat-free mass (FFM) by BIA has been well validated with FFM by the dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry method (DPX-L; Lunar) (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.88, standard error of estimate = 1.61, FFM [DEXA] = 0.99 x FFM [BIA] + 0.26 kg) (22). All patients were placed in the supine position with their arms away from the torso and legs not touching each other. The participants were asked to remain silent and stationary during the measurements. Reduced skeletal muscle mass was defined as an ASM < 7.0 kg/m2 in men and ASM < 5.7 kg/m2 in women (11). ### Choice and measurement of candidate predictors Age, sex, dialysis duration, BMI, primary renal disease, comorbidities, and laboratory blood data were collected from the medical records. The following blood laboratory tests were performed before dialysis on Monday or Tuesday, two days after the last dialysis: serum creatinine (Cr), blood urea nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus, calcium, albumin, C-reactive protein (CRP), and haemoglobin. Measurements were restricted to these blood tests because they are recommended to be assessed at least monthly in Japan and are measured worldwide (23). In all facilities, Cr was measured using an enzymatic assay, and albumin was measured using a modified bromocresol purple assay. To determine BMI, body weight was measured to the nearest 0.1 kg after the first haemodialysis session at the beginning of the week. Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) version 2.0 is a global rating scale for frailty based on the investigator’s clinical judgment using available clinical information. The scale was rated from 1–9 (1 = very healthy, 2 = good, 3 = well-controlled, 4 = frail, 5 = mild frailty, 6 = moderate frailty, 7 = severe frailty, 8 = very severe frailty, and 9 = terminal illness). For classification purposes, a CFS score of 1–3 was considered ‘non-frail’, 4 was considered ‘pre-frail’, and > 5 was considered ‘frail’ (18, 19). ## Statistical analyses To describe candidate predictors, continuous variables were summarised as median and interquartile range (IQR), and categorical variables as number of patients and percentages. ### Original model building for web-based programme To create a clinical prediction model for use in a web-based programme, variable selection was performed using a logistic regression model without transforming the predictor variables. For variable selection, a backward elimination method was employed, with a significance level of 0.157 (24). As a result, age, sex, BMI, CFS score, and Cr level were retained. These variables were then incorporated into a logistic regression model. The internal validity of the model was evaluated using the 200-fold bootstrap method (25). Furthermore, an optimism-corrected (i.e. heuristic shrinkage) model for the regression coefficients of each variable was adopted as the original model. ### Point-score-based system A clinical prediction model based on a point-score system was developed for a paper-based, convenient operation in a clinical setting (16, 26). First, low values were used to examine the relationship between continuous variables (age, BMI, CFS score, and Cr level) and the presence of sarcopenia. Second, based on the shapes of their plots and our clinical perspectives, the variables were classified into three or four groups (i.e. age: < 70, 70 to < 80, ≥ 80 years; BMI: < 20, 20 to < 23, ≥ 23 kg/m2; CFS score: 1–2, 3–4, 5–6, 7–9; Cr: < 7, 7 to < 10, 10 to < 12, ≥ 12 mg/dL). The midpoint of each category was then determined and regression units were calculated by multiplying the difference from the midpoint of the reference category by the optimistic-corrected regression coefficient (16, 27). Finally, the regression units were divided by the smallest coefficient and rounded to assign integer scores to each category. ### Assessing the performance of the two models The performances of both the original and point-score-based models were evaluated via discrimination and calibration. Discrimination was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Calibration curves were generated to compare the observed and predicted probabilities of sarcopenia. These analyses were performed through internal validation using the derivation cohort and external validation using the validation cohort. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata, version 18.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA). The sample size was not predetermined, and all available data were used to ensure maximum statistical power. Patients with missing outcome data were excluded from the analysis. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. ## Results ### Patient Characteristics Of the 396 patients enrolled in the derivation cohort from the two hospitals, 373 were included in this study. The patient characteristics are presented in Table 1. The median patient age was 71 years (interquartile range [IQR] 61–79). Of the 373 patients, 357 (95.7%) underwent weekly haemodialysis. Among the 129 patients enrolled in the external validation cohort from the remaining two hospitals, the median age was 73 years (IQR 65–81). Of the 129 patients, 127 (98.8%) underwent weekly haemodialysis. Notably, more patients in the validation cohort had sarcopenia and higher CFS scores than those in the derivation cohort (Table 1). View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/17/2024.01.17.24301264/T1) Table 1. Characteristics of patients on haemodialysis in the derivation cohort and the external validation cohort ### Model Developments Table 2 shows the regression coefficients for the selected variables (age, sex, BMI, CFS score, and Cr level) and those after optimism correction. Furthermore, using these corrected coefficients, continuous variables, such as BMI, CFS score, and Cr level, were used to create a model for the point score system. Table 3 presents the scores assigned to each category. The total risk score is the sum of the scores for each selected risk factor, ranging from -14–25 points. Higher scores indicate a higher likelihood of sarcopenia. Table 4 lists the formulas for the original model and the point-score-based model. A user-friendly web-based programme derived from the original model was released ([https://noriaki-kurita.jp/en/resources/abc2screener/)](https://noriaki-kurita.jp/en/resources/abc2screener/). View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/17/2024.01.17.24301264/T2) Table 2. Results of a multivariable logistic regression analysis with the selected predictors for sarcopenia before and after optimism correction View this table: [Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/17/2024.01.17.24301264/T3) Table 3. Point-scores for predicting sarcopenia derived from the optimism-corrected regression coefficients View this table: [Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/17/2024.01.17.24301264/T4) Table 4. Formulas of the original model and point-score-based model for prediction of sarcopenia ### Predictive performance in the derivation cohort (internal validation) For discrimination, the AUROCs of the original and point score-based models were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96– 0.98) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93–0.97), respectively (Figures 2a and 2c). For the calibration, the predicted probability of sarcopenia in the original model was almost identical to the observed probability. In contrast, in the point-score-based model, the risks were underestimated within the moderately predicted risk range (Figures 2b and 2d). Table 5 shows the proportion of sarcopenia along with predicted risks by point scores and indicates that risks are underestimated in a subset of patients with scores ranging from 1– 14. ![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/01/17/2024.01.17.24301264/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/17/2024.01.17.24301264/F2) Figure 2. Discrimination (a) and calibration (b) of the original model and discrimination (c) and calibration (d) of the score-based model in the derivation cohort. In a calibration plot, x-axis represents the predicted probability of sarcopenia and y-axis represents the observed probability (i.e. the actual percentage). The diagonal line represents the line of perfect prediction of sarcopenia, and the closer the plot is to this prediction line, indicating that the predicted probability highly agrees with the observed probability. For the discrimination of the original model (a), the optimism-corrected area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.97 (95% CI 0.96–0.98). Calibration plot (b) shows excellent agreement between the predicted and observed probabilities of sarcopenia. By contrast, the point score-based model (c) had an AUROC of 0.95 (95% CI 0.93–0.97). However, the calibration plot (d) underestimated the probability of sarcopenia in the moderate-risk range, with a calibration-in-the-large of 2.17. Abbreviations: ROC, receiver operating characteristic; E:O, expected/observed; CITL, calibration-in-the-large; AUC, area under the curve View this table: [Table 5.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/17/2024.01.17.24301264/T5) Table 5. Predicted and actual proportions of sarcopenia by each point score in the derivation cohort ### Predictive performance in the validation cohort (external validation) The original model had an AUROC of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95–1.00), which was comparable to that of the internal validation cohort (Figure 3a). In contrast, the point score-based model showed a lower AUROC value than that of the derivation cohort (0.91 [95% CI: 0.87–0.96]), as depicted in Figure 3c. The calibration plot of the original model showed excellent agreement across the range of predicted probabilities (Figure 3b). The calibration plot of the score-based model underestimated the risks across the moderately predicted probability range for sarcopenia, whereas it revealed better agreement between the predicted and observed probabilities for both the low- and high-risk ranges (Figure 3d). ![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/01/17/2024.01.17.24301264/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/17/2024.01.17.24301264/F3) Figure 3. Discrimination (a) and calibration (b) of the original model and discrimination (c) and calibration (d) of the score-based model in the external validation cohort. In a calibration plot, x-axis represents the predicted probability of sarcopenia and y-axis represents the observed probability (i.e. the actual percentage). The diagonal line represents the line of perfect prediction of sarcopenia, and the closer the plot is to this prediction line, indicating that the predicted probability highly agrees with the observed probability. The original model demonstrated comparable predictive performance to the internal validation cohort, as evidenced by an optimism-corrected area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.97 (95% CI 0.95–1.00) for discrimination (a) and a calibration line close to the diagonal line (b). In contrast, the point score-based model (c) yielded an AUROC of 0.91 (95% CI 0.87–0.96), slightly lower than the original model. Its calibration plot (d) showed better predictive performance in both low- and high-risk ranges, except in the moderate-risk range with underestimated probability of sarcopenia. Abbreviations: ROC, receiver operating characteristic; E:O, expected/observed; CITL, calibration-in-the-large; AUC, area under the curve ## Discussion We hypothesised that our newly developed diagnostic support tool, the ABC2-Screener, could predict sarcopenia among patients undergoing haemodialysis. Our results demonstrated good discrimination and calibration with external validation of the ABC2-Screener. The tool consists of five variables (A: age, B: BMI, C2: CFS and Cr, and S: sex) and has the advantage of easy implementation in everyday clinical practice, as either web- or paper-based, without incurring additional costs. Despite the requirement of high sensitivity for screening sarcopenia (28), low sensitivities of the SARC-F questionnaire and its modified versions recommended for the general population have been noted in a meta-analysis (28.9%–55.3% and 45.9%–57.2%, respectively) (29). Thus, a simple and practical clinical prediction rule for sarcopenia, as in our study, is required because of the low sensitivity of these screening methods among patients on dialysis (30). Several studies on clinical prediction rules for sarcopenia among patients on dialysis have been reported; however, they were limited in terms of validity and transferability. Xie et al.’s nomogram for patients undergoing MHD, consisting of four predictors (age, weight, sex, and grip strength), demonstrated good calibration in external validation (14). However, it was impractical because the predictor variables include grip strength, which is a diagnostic criterion for sarcopenia. Notably, clinical prediction rules should essentially be constructed with simple predictors that do not involve the measurements required to diagnose the target disease. Du et al.’s nomogram for patients undergoing haemodialysis, consisting of four predictors (age, BMI, calf circumference (CC), and serum Cr), also demonstrated good calibration in external validation (13). However, the inclusion of CC as a predictive variable requires a tape measure that is not always available at dialysis facilities. In addition, the application of CC is limited by leg oedema due to fluid overload and lower-extremity amputation. Cai et al.’s nomogram for patients undergoing haemodialysis consisting of five predictors (age, CRP, phosphorus, BMI, and mid-upper arm circumference [MUAC]) is limited in its application because it has not been externally validated and requires measurements of CRP and MUAC using a tape measure (12). The MUAC measurements, which can be useful in predicting sarcopenia in the general population (31), are typically measured in the non-dominant arm. However, MUAC measurements in patients undergoing haemodialysis are generally performed on the side without vascular access which does not necessarily correspond to the dominant side; thus, MUAC measurements may differ between the dominant and non-dominant sides (13,32). Consequently, this may lead to misclassification. Additionally, in a study evaluating a nomogram for sarcopenia in patients undergoing haemodialysis, the side of the MUAC measurement was not clarified (14). Other clinical prediction rules for patients on dialysis, including irisin and fat-free mass index, also have limitations due to the unavailability of measurements in usual care and the lack of external validation (17). Considering the above, our research focused on developing a simple and practical clinical tool to predict sarcopenia using a combination of data routinely measured in haemodialysis facilities and a free frailty assessment instrument. Consequently, we developed the ABC2-Screener in two forms: a paper-based point score system, which provides a quick risk estimate based on total points, and a web-based programme, which automatically provides a risk estimate based on numerical values entered without revealing any complex mathematical formulas to its users (16). Blood test predictors (Cr) are measured at least monthly in Japan (23). The CFS, a 9-point rating tool developed and revised by the Canadian Society of Health and Aging, can be reliably implemented because it has been shown to have a sufficient agreement between gerontology professionals and amateurs (33). The predictive validity of the CFS has been demonstrated by a report in which the CFS rating based on medical personnel impressions predicted mortality among patients on haemodialysis (34). Thus, the data from these items can be collected through routine dialysis practices worldwide and do not incur new economic costs. The ABC2-Screener showed useful discriminative and calibration performance in external validation, particularly for web-based programmes. The discriminative ability of the ABC2-Screener in external validation was excellent for both the point-scoring system and web-based programme (0.9149 and 0.9708, respectively) and equal to or superior to those of the aforementioned clinical prediction models (especially the web-based programme) (12–14, 17). The external validation calibration of our tool showed a good fit across low to high predicted risk for the web-based programme while the intermediate predicted risk was underestimated for the point score system. The reason for the lower discrimination and calibration in our point-score system compared with that of our web-based programme appears to be a loss of accuracy owing to the categorization and rounding of continuous variable predictors to integer values to prioritise paper-based, intuitive implementation. The clinical importance of our ABC2-Screener is its implementation in all haemodialysis facilities using existing equipment. The web-based programme can automatically calculate the predicted risk of sarcopenia instantly by entering numerical values for the three ABCs (age, BMI, and Cr), selecting a CFS value from a pull-down menu, and selecting sex. The paper-based point-score system can classify the predicted risk of sarcopenia from a summed risk score (-14 to 25 points) by selecting categories for the five applicable variables. With either system, a high predicted risk indicates a high probability of sarcopenia, whereas a low predicted risk eliminates the need for confirmatory testing for sarcopenia, such as DXA or four-point electrode BIA. Nonetheless, this study had several limitations. First, the sample size was limited, especially for the validation set, which may have resulted in an inaccurate calibration of the point-score system. While our developed logistic regression model meets the requirement of 5–9 events per variable to accept bias (i.e. 44 events per 5 variables = 8.8) (35), a study suggests that at least 100 target events are required to obtain an accurate calibration curve (36). Second, the assay for blood laboratory values was not standardised. However, given that non-standardised measurements are subject to misclassification compared to uniformly assayed measurements, the magnitude of the association between serum Cr level and sarcopenia, for example, would have been conservatively estimated. Third, it is unclear whether the same performance would be observed in other ethnic groups, given that our study was conducted in a single race. However, many previous clinical prediction rule studies on sarcopenia among patients undergoing dialysis were also conducted in a single race. Therefore, future studies should validate the ABC2-Screener with more multicentre, multiracial, and large-scale samples. In conclusion, we developed a new diagnostic support tool, the ABC2-Screener, for sarcopenia among patients undergoing haemodialysis and demonstrated good discrimination and calibration with external validation. The tool can be implemented in any haemodialysis facility using only routine clinical data, especially in those without the equipment necessary for confirmatory testing of sarcopenia. ## Data availability statement The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. ## Funding This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (grant numbers: JP19KT0021). ## Authors‘ contributions Research idea and study design: MM, TS, and NK; data acquisition: MM, AK, YM, HK, and TS; data analysis/interpretation: TA, TK, and NK; statistical analysis: TA, TK, and NK; supervision or mentorship: TK and NK. Each author contributed important intellectual content during manuscript drafting or revision, agreed to be personally accountable for the individual’s own contributions, and ensured that questions pertaining to the accuracy or integrity of any portion of the work, even one in which the author was not directly involved, were appropriately investigated and resolved, including documentation in the literature, if appropriate. ## Conflict of interest statement The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. ## Acknowledgements The authors greatly thank the following researchers, research assistants, and medical staff members for their assistance in collecting the clinical information used in this study: Tetsuo Ueki, MD, Akio Munakata, MD, Yoshihiko Watanabe, MD (Munakata Clinic, Mobara-City, Chiba); Teruaki Koshiba, PT, Ms. Yayoi Takanashi, Reiji Masaki, NP, Takumi Toishi, MD, Tomohiko Inoue, MD, Shinnosuke Sugihara, MD, Kanako Nagaoka, MD, Junko Fukuda, MD, Mamiko Ohara, MD, PhD (Kameda Medical Center, Kamogawa-City, Chiba); Kenji Yamaguchi, MD (Awa Regional Medical Center, Tateyama-City, Chiba); Ms. Miyuki Sato (Fukushima Medical University Hospital, Fukushima-City, Fukushima). ## Footnotes * * MM and TA share the first authorship. * Received January 17, 2024. * Revision received January 17, 2024. * Accepted January 17, 2024. * © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission. ## References 1. 1.Souza VA de, Oliveira D, Barbosa SR, et al. Sarcopenia in patients with chronic kidney disease not yet on dialysis: Analysis of the prevalence and associated factors. PloS one 2017; 12: e0176230. 2. 2.Kim J-K, Choi SR, Choi MJ, et al. Prevalence of and factors associated with sarcopenia in elderly patients with end-stage renal disease. Clinical Nutr 2014; 33: 64–68. 3. 3.Fahal IH. Uraemic sarcopenia: aetiology and implications. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2014; 29: 1655–1665. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ndt/gft070&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23625972&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F17%2F2024.01.17.24301264.atom) 4. 4.Isoyama N, Qureshi AR, Avesani CM, et al. Comparative associations of muscle mass and muscle strength with mortality in dialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2014; 9: 1720–1728. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiY2xpbmphc24iO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6OToiOS8xMC8xNzIwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDEvMTcvMjAyNC4wMS4xNy4yNDMwMTI2NC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 5. 5.Kamijo Y, Kanda E, Ishibashi Y, Yoshida M. Sarcopenia and Frailty in PD: Impact on Mortality, Malnutrition, and Inflammation. Perit Dial Int 2018; 38: 447–454. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoicGRpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjM4LzYvNDQ3IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDEvMTcvMjAyNC4wMS4xNy4yNDMwMTI2NC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 6. 6.Chatzipetrou V, Bégin M-J, Hars M, Trombetti A. Sarcopenia in Chronic Kidney Disease: A Scoping Review of Prevalence, Risk Factors, Association with Outcomes, and Treatment. Calcif Tissue Int 2022; 110: 1–31. 7. 7.Jamal SA, Leiter RE, Jassal V, Hamilton CJ, Bauer DC. Impaired muscle strength is associated with fractures in hemodialysis patients. Osteoporos Int 2006; 17: 1390–1397. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00198-006-0133-y&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16799753&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F17%2F2024.01.17.24301264.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000239300400009&link_type=ISI) 8. 8.Kim J-K, Kim SG, Oh J-E, et al. Impact of sarcopenia on long-term mortality and cardiovascular events in patients undergoing hemodialysis. Korean J Intern Med 2019; 34: 599–607. 9. 9.Wilkinson TJ, Miksza J, Yates T, et al. Association of sarcopenia with mortality and end-stage renal disease in those with chronic kidney disease: a UK Biobank study. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2021; 12: 586–598. 10. 10.Dent E, Morley JE, Cruz-Jentoft AJ, et al. International Clinical Practice Guidelines for Sarcopenia (ICFSR): Screening, Diagnosis and Management. J Nutr Health Aging 2018; 22: 1148–1161. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s12603-018-1139-9&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F17%2F2024.01.17.24301264.atom) 11. 11.Chen L-K, Woo J, Assantachai P, et al. Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia: 2019 Consensus Update on Sarcopenia Diagnosis and Treatment. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2020; 21: 300–307.e2. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jamda.2019.12.012&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F17%2F2024.01.17.24301264.atom) 12. 12.Cai G, Ying J, Pan M, Lang X, Yu W, Zhang Q. Development of a risk prediction nomogram for sarcopenia in hemodialysis patients. BMC Nephrol 2022; 23: 319. 13. 13.Du X, Chen G, Zhang H, et al. Development of a Practical Screening Tool to Predict Sarcopenia in Patients on Maintenance Hemodialysis. Med Sci Monit 2022; 28: e937504. 14. 14.Xie D, Zhu Q, Lu J, et al. Development and validation of a diagnostic nomogram for sarcopenia in Chinese hemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2023; 38: 1017–1026. 15. 15.Steyerberg EW. Clinical Prediction Models [Internet]. Second Edition. Springer International Publishing, [cited 2023 Dec 9]. 16. 16.Bonnett LJ, Snell KIE, Collins GS, Riley RD. Guide to presenting clinical prediction models for use in clinical settings. BMJ 2019; 365: l737. [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE2OiIzNjUvYXByMTdfMi9sNzM3IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDEvMTcvMjAyNC4wMS4xNy4yNDMwMTI2NC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 17. 17.Wu J, Lin S, Guan J, Wu X, Ding M, Shen S. Prediction of the sarcopenia in peritoneal dialysis using simple clinical information: A machine learning-based model. Seminars Dial 2023; 36: 390–398. 18. 18.Rockwood K, Song X, MacKnight C et al. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ 2005; 173: 489–495. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY21haiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIxNzMvNS80ODkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wMS8xNy8yMDI0LjAxLjE3LjI0MzAxMjY0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 19. 19.Rockwood K, Theou O. Using the Clinical Frailty Scale in Allocating Scarce Health Care Resources. Can Geriatr J 2020; 23: 210–215. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.5770/cgj.23.463&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32904824&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F17%2F2024.01.17.24301264.atom) 20. 20.Arao M, Yajima T. Computed tomography-based abdominal sarcopenic indices and bio-impedance analysis-based skeletal muscle mass index in hemodialyzed patients. Clin Nutr 2024; 59: 21– 28. 21. 21.Shibata M, Tawada H, Nagai K, Taniguchi S. Supportive Effects of Online Hemodiafiltration Therapy on the Nutritional State and Lipid Profile in Very Elderly Dialysis Patients. Blood Purif 2022; 51: 690–697. 22. 22.Tanaka K, Okuno J, Fujimoto T, et al. Usefulness of body composition measurement using multi-frequency impedance method - comparison with DEXA method and body water method. Journal of Japan Society for the Study of Obesity [Internet] 2000; [cited 2023 Dec 29] 6: 68–75 (in Japanese). Available from: [https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1520290885581643136](https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1520290885581643136) 23. 23.Committee for Maintenance Dialysis Therapy, Japanese Association of Dialysis Physicians. Manual of Insurance Practice for Patients undergoing Chronic Hemodialysis in Maintenance Period (Revised in 1998). The Journal of Japanese Association of Dialysis Physicians [Internet] 1998; [cited 2023 Dec 17] 79: S1–S25 (in Japanese). Available from: [http://www.touseki-ikai.or.jp/htm/05\_publish/doc\_m\_and\_g/man.pdf](http://www.touseki-ikai.or.jp/htm/05\_publish/doc_m_and_g/man.pdf) 24. 24.Moons KGM, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, et al. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: W1–W73. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/M14-0698&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25560730&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F17%2F2024.01.17.24301264.atom) 25. 25.Steyerberg EW, Harrell FE Jr., Borsboom GJ, Eijkemans MJ, Vergouwe Y, Habbema JD. Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 774–781. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00341-9&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11470385&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F17%2F2024.01.17.24301264.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000170019900003&link_type=ISI) 26. 26.Steyerberg EW, Vergouwe Y. Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation. Eur Heart J 2014; 35: 1925–1931. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/eurheartj/ehu207&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24898551&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F17%2F2024.01.17.24301264.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000342232100007&link_type=ISI) 27. 27.Sullivan LM, Massaro JM, D’Agostino RB Sr. Presentation of multivariate data for clinical use: The Framingham Study risk score functions. Stat Med 2004; 23: 1631–1660. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/sim.1742&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15122742&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F17%2F2024.01.17.24301264.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000221233900017&link_type=ISI) 28. 28.Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG, et al. STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e012799. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiNi8xMS9lMDEyNzk5IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDEvMTcvMjAyNC4wMS4xNy4yNDMwMTI2NC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 29. 29.Voelker SN, Michalopoulos N, Maier AB, Reijnierse EM. Reliability and Concurrent Validity of the SARC-F and Its Modified Versions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2021; 22: 1864–1876.e16. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jamda.2021.05.011&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=34144049&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F17%2F2024.01.17.24301264.atom) 30. 30.Imamura K, Yamamoto S, Suzuki Y, et al. Limitations of SARC-F as a Screening Tool for Sarcopenia in Patients on Hemodialysis. Nephron 2022; 146: 32–39. 31. 31.Akın S, Mucuk S, Öztürk A, et al. Muscle function-dependent sarcopenia and cut-off values of possible predictors in community-dwelling Turkish elderly: calf circumference, midarm muscle circumference and walking speed. Eur J Clin Nutr 2015; 69: 1087–1090. 32. 32.Lertwanich P, Lamsam C, Kulthanan T. Difference in isokinetic strength of the muscles around dominant and nondominant shoulders. J Med Assoc Thai 2006; 89: 948–952. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16881425&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F17%2F2024.01.17.24301264.atom) 33. 33.Theou O, Pérez-Zepeda MU, van der Valk AM, Searle SD, Howlett SE, Rockwood K. A classification tree to assist with routine scoring of the Clinical Frailty Scale. Age Ageing 2021; 50: 1406– 1411. 34. 34.Imamura K, Yamamoto S, Suzuki Y, et al. Comparison of the association between six different frailty scales and clinical events in patients on hemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2023; 13: 455–462. 35. 35.Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE. Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol 2007; 165: 710–718. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/aje/kwk052&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17182981&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F17%2F2024.01.17.24301264.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000244655200014&link_type=ISI) 36. 36.Collins GS, Ogundimu EO, Altman DG. Sample size considerations for the external validation of a multivariable prognostic model: a resampling study. Stat Med 2016; 35: 214–226. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/sim.6787&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26553135&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F17%2F2024.01.17.24301264.atom)