ABSTRACT
Introduction Weakness is a natural age-related condition meaning the loss of muscle strength that impairs older adults’ mobility and quality of life. Because the relationship between muscle strength and body-size variables is non-linear, weakness is misclassified in older adults with extreme body size (e.g., light, short, heavy, or tall). This misclassification can be overcome using the allometric approach.
Objectives To propose cut-off points for older adults’ weakness for upper and lower limbs muscle strength normalized by body size with the ratio standard and allometric scaling.
Methods Ninety-four community-dwelling older adults (69.1% women) were assessed for 49 body-size variables (anthropometry, body composition and body indexes), handgrip strength (HGS), one maximum repetition measurement for knee extensors (1RMknee extensors), isokinetic knee extension peak torque at 60°/s (knee extensionPT60°/s), and six-minute walk test (6MWT). Ratio standard (muscle strength/body size) and allometric scaling (muscle strength/body sizeb; when b is the allometric exponent) were applied for body-size variables that significantly were correlated with HGS, 1RMknee extensors and knee extensionPT60°/s. Cut-off points were computed based on ROC curve and Youden index. When there was mobility limitation (6MWT<400m) cut-off were computed according to sex.
Results Absolute HGS, 1RMknee extensors and knee extensionPT60°/s cut-off points were not adequate because they were associated with body size (r>0.30). But it was corrected with muscle strength normalization according to body size-variables: HGS (n=1); 1RMknee extensors (n=24) and knee extensionPT60°/s (n=24). The best cut-off points, with the highest area under the curve (AUC), were found after normalization for men: HGS/forearm circumference (1.33 kg/cm, AUC=0.74), 1RMknee extensors/triceps skinfold (4.22 kg/mm, AUC=0.81), and knee extensionPT60°/s/body mass*height0.43 (13.0 Nm/kg*m0.43, AUC=0.94); and for women: HGS/forearm circumference (1.04 kg/cm, AUC=0.70), 1RMknee extensors/body mass (0.54 kg/kg, AUC=0.76); and knee extensionPT60°/s/body mass0.72 (3.14 Nm/kg0.72; AUC=0.82).
Conclusion Normalization removes the effect of extreme body size on muscle strength and improves the accuracy to identify weakness at population level, reducing the risk of false-positive cases.
Highlights
This study proposed a new approach to identify muscle weakness in older adults based on upper and lower limbs muscle strength normalized by body size (ratio standard and allometry).
The identification of functional limitation is more precise when procedures of muscle strength normalization is applied.
INTRODUCTION
Muscle weakness is a natural muscle strength loss occurring along aging, and it predicts older adults’ increased risk of hospital admissions, depression, fractures and premature mortality [1-3]. Muscle weakness can predict functional disability (i.e., difficulty to perform instrumental and basic activities of daily living-ADL) like as mobility limitation [4], which is even more important than multimorbidity to forecast mortality amongst older adults [5]. As a consequence of its predictive ability, muscle weakness was used to identify geriatric syndromes such as dynapenia [6], frailty [7] and sarcopenia [8].
Muscle weakness is normally measured using muscle strength tests such as handgrip (HGS) or leg extension strength [8]. The current values to identify muscle weakness are based on absolute (non-normalized) muscle strength results [7, 9-17] or dividing absolute results by some (i.e., body mass) body-size variable (ratio standard) [18, 19]. The identification of weakness based on absolute muscle strength cut-off points may be inaccurate for lighter body mass and shorter height older adults [20-22]. In fact, the absolute values characterize lighter and shorter body size older adults as having muscle weakness, even if they sustain their instrumental and basic ADL [23]. This is a false positive muscle weakness diagnostic, that frequently leads to an unnecessarily utilization of public health resources, contributing to health burden [24]. Another topic that merits consideration is the inaccuracy of the ratio standard procedure because it overestimates the real strength of light/short older adults and underestimates it for tall/heavy ones [23]. These limitations are a consequence of the nonlinear relationship between muscle strength and body-size variables [20-22]. To overcome these constraints, the utilization of allometric scaling, that contemplates power and sensitivity in the nonlinear relationship between muscle strength and body size with the allometric exponent (b) might represent an adequate option [20-23].
Previous studies reported already the power function ratio in older adults between HGS and body-size variables as body mass (b=0.63 or 0.40 or 0.31) [20-22], height (b=1.84) [21] and fat-free mass (FFM) (b=0.46) [21] and between leg extension strength and body mass (b=0.67 or 0.69 or 0.72 or 0.74 or 0.96) [23, 25]. Indeed, scaling HGS by body size (example: HGS/heigth1.84) removes the effect of body size on muscle strength [21], but the scaling muscle strength by body size to determine muscle weakness cut-off points has not been considered from HGS and knee extension in isokinetic dynamometer, excepting the one maximum repetition measurement for knee extensors (1RMknee extensors) scaled to body mass [23]. Besides, important body-size variables related to mobility and ADL (e.g. fat mas [26], FFM [27] and leg length [28]) were not utilized to scaling muscle strength and create muscle weakness cut-off points.
Thus, our objective is to propose cut-off points for older adults’ weakness with upper and lower limbs muscle strength normalized by body-size with the ratio standard and allometric scaling. We hypothesize that the normalization of muscle strength by ratio standard and allometry can be a way to approach muscle strength regardless of body size, which should reduce the risk of bias in identifying false-positive cases of vulnerable older people.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Design and Study population
This is a cross-sectional study conducted from October 2016 to May 2017 at the University Hospital of Ribeirao Preto School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, Brazil (HC-FMRP-USP). The study was approved by the HC-FMRP-USP institutional review board. Older adults were voluntarily recruited and assigned an informed consent. This manuscript followed the guidelines from The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) conference list, and the completed checklist is attached.
The sample consisted of 94 community-dwelling older adults (>60 years old, 69.1% women) recruited in projects for older adults of USP and in health community services. Inclusion criteria were walk independently, absent limitation to execute all procedures, acute infections, cancer diagnosis, hip or knee prostheses, unstable cardiovascular condition, stroke sequelae, tumors, and weight loss >3 kg in the last three months. The exclusion criteria were discontinuity in the study and cognition impairment.
A sample size calculation (n=[ZySD/ε]2) with trust level (Zy=0,95), greater compatible population variability founded in the literature (SD of 1RMknee extensors: ±19.96 kg) [29, 30] and maximum desired error (ε≤8.0 kg) was performed and identified a minimum sample size of n=24 for each sex.
Procedures
A multidisciplinary health team (nurses, nutritionists, pharmacists, physical education professors, physicians, and physiotherapists) performed data collection. The appraisers were the same in each test. Data collection occurred on three non-consecutive days: 1st) recruitment: inclusion criteria verification and cognition assessment; by phone calls (inclusion criteria) or face to face (cognition assessment) of older adults who agreed to participate in the study; 2nd) anthropometrics, body composition, HGS, mobility and physical activity level assessment; and 3rd) lower limbs muscle strength assessment.
Cognition Assessment
The validated Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) was used to assess participants’ cognition status [31]. Those who have MMSE≤12 were excluded [32].
Measure of Body-Size Variables
Forty-nine body-size variables (SUPPLEMENT A) were collected to propose allometric exponents and to normalize performance in muscle strength tests. The selection of these variables were based on those previously used to calculate body indices [33-41], and involved anthropometric measurements [42] and body composition (Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry-DXA and bioelectrical impedance analysis-BIA), as briefly detailed below.
Body Indexes
The body indexes derived from anthropometry were body mass index (BMI, kg/m2) [33], body mass*height [34], human body surface area (SA, m2) [35], absolute mid-arm muscle circumference (MAMC, cm) [36], corrected arm muscle area (CAMA, cm) [37], arm fat area (AFA,cm2) [38], FFM [39] and fat mass (obtained by body mass difference). The body indexes derived from body composition were lean soft tissue (LST) of arms and legs, appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM), ASM/height (m)2 [40], FFM (estimated from BIA) [41] and DXA, when fat mass were estimated by body mass difference.
Mobility Measurement
The cut-off points for muscle weakness were established based on mobility limitation. Mobility performance was verified based on the six-minute walk test (6MWT) carried out in a corridor 30-meter length. Along this path, at every three meters there was a cone to help researcher to precisely identify the walked distance [28]. Participants were instructed to cover the longest distance walking as faster as they could during the six-minute time. Nevertheless, participants could slow down, interrupt the walking, and resume the test whenever desired, although time was not paused. Total walked distance was recorded and mobility disability was characterized when the 6MWT<400 m [43].
Muscle Strength Measurements
Muscle strength was measured using HGS, one maximum repetition measurement for knee extensors (1RMknee extensors) and isokinetic knee extension peak torque at a velocity of 60°/s (knee extensionPT60°/s). The maximum HGS was measured with a manual dynamometer (Jamar®, model 5030J1) using a previously published protocol [44]. Three attempts were performed, one minute apart, with the dominant hand and the highest result was recorded in kg as HGS [45, 46]. The 1RMknee extensors was estimated in a leg extension machine (Lion Fitness® model LFS) with a submaximal repetition protocol: 1RM=weight lifted/(1.0278-[0.0278*n° of reps]) [47]. The detailed protocol was published elsewhere [23]. The isokinetic knee extension peak torque at 60°/s (knee extensionPT60°/s) of the right lower limb was recorded with the Biodex (model System 4 Pro) isokinetic dynamometer and results are in newton-meter (Nm) according to standardized protocol [48].
Physical Activity Level Measurement
The International Physical Activity Questionnaire - Short Version was used to get physical activity level [49]. Physical activity level was dichotomized into sedentary (0) and irregularly active, active or very active (1). These two categories were introduced in the models to provide allometric exponents.
Muscle Strength Normalization Procedures (Ratio Standard and Allometric Scaling)
HGS, 1RMknee extensors and knee extensionPT60°/s were considered in three different ways: 1) absolute (non-normalized); 2) ratio standard (muscle strength/body-size variable); and 3) allometrically adjusted (muscle strength/body-size variableb).
Allometric exponents (b) were proposed only for body-size variables that showed significant correlation (Pearson’s correlation) with muscle strength. To generate the allometric exponents, muscle strength (Y) and body-size variables (X) were converted to natural logarithm (ln) and the slope of regression line is allometric exponent (b), according to more detail previously published [21]. Therefore, allometric exponents were discarded when the interaction (ln body-size variable*age*sex*physical activity level) was significant or when there was multicollinearity in the linear regression (variance inflation factor [VIF]>10) [50].
We also consider other allometric exponents (b) of the literature, as described in Table 1.
In order to verify whether normalization removed the influence of body size on muscle strength, the correlation between normalized muscle strength and body-size variables (body mass, height and body-size used) should be negligible (r≤30) [51].
Statistical Analysis
Proposition of Cut-off Points for Muscle Weakness
Absolute muscle strength and normalized by ratio standard or allometric scaling had their area under the curve (AUC) quantified by the ROC curve. The Youden index [52] selected the most appropriate cut-off points with the best relationship between sensitivity and specificity for the primary outcome (functional limitation: 6MWD<400) [43].
The cut-off points were considered adequate when they have AUC≥0.70 [53] simultaneously for both sexes (p<0.05) and when the correlation between muscle strength and body-size variables (body mass, height and body-size used) were negligible (r≤0.30) [51].
For each muscle strength test (HGS, 1RMknee extensors and knee extensionPT60°/s), way (non-normalized, ratio standard and allometric scaling) and for each and sex was selected the adequate cut-off point according the superior accuracy. When there was a tie in accuracy, the variable with the greatest sensitivity or specificity was chosen. Finally, the AUC - ROC curves of non-normalized and normalized muscle strength were compared with each other to decide the best cut-off point.
The analyzes were performed using the SPSS 25.0 statistical package, and the ROC curves and Youden index in MedCalc 15.2 with a previously established level of significance (α=5%).
RESULTS
Sample was encompassed by 100 older adults (69 women) who agreed to participate in the study. From those, 6 were excluded for different reasons, as the stages of the study proceeded, as detailed in Figure 1. Therefore, the final sample comprised 29 older men (31%) and 65 older women (69%).
Sample characterization according to sex is shown in Table 2. Twenty-five women (38.5%) and seven men (24.1%) had functional limitation (6MWT<400 m).
The correlations between muscle strength and body-size variables are also shown in Table 2. Most of the body-size variables showed a significant correlation with muscle strength (r=-0.41 to 0.75; p<0.05).
Allometric exponents were proposed for those body-size variables that showed a significant relationship with muscle strength (Table 2). Linear regressions to obtain allometric exponents are shown in SUPPLEMENT B. All regressions were significant to explain muscle strength (p<0.05), with adjusted R2 ranging from 0.39 to 0.61. The regression coefficients (β) obtained for each body-size variable represent the allometric exponents obtained. For HGS, the allometric exponents of triceps, pectoral, abdominal and thigh skinfolds were discarded because the interaction terms were statistically significant (p<0.05) and have accentuated multicollinearity (VIF>10). The remaining allometric exponents were used to perform normalization (for example, 1RMknee extensors/body mass0.44).
The sex-specific cut-off points proposed for HGS, 1RMknee extensors and knee extensionPT60°/s (non-normalized, ratio standard and allometric scaling) to identify muscle weakness are presented in the SUPPLEMENT C. In the same supplement there are also presented correlations between muscle strength and body size (body mass, height and body-size variable used in normalization).
Non-normalized HGS, 1RMknee extensors and knee extensionPT60°/s cut-off points to identify muscle weakness were not adequate for both sexes or because they did not present AUC≥0.70 (p<0.05) or because they had a significant association with body size (r>0.30; p<0.05) (SUPPLEMENT C).
Table 3 shows the cut-off points based on the ratio standard and allometric scaling classified as adequate.
A comparison of the most accurate ROC curves is presented in Figure 2 to support the decision for the best cut-off point between non-normalized, ratio standard and allometric scaling of HGS and lower limbs strength (1RMknee extensors and knee extensionPT60°/s) for each sex.
For men, there were no differences in accuracy (AUC) to identify functional limitation between absolute muscle strength, normalized by ratio standard or by allometric scaling (p>0.05; Figure 2 a, b, c). However, the absolute muscle strengths (HGS, 1RMknee extensors and knee extensionPT60°/s) previously indicated great dependence (r>0.30) on body size (SUPPLEMENT C), suggesting the need for normalization to avoid errors in the classification of weakness. The normalized muscle strength increased the AUC and made it possible to classify muscle weakness of older adults with extreme body sizes, independently.
For women, only after normalizing muscle strength the AUC values perform acceptable to identify functional limitation (AUC>0.70; Figure 2 d, e). The exception was knee extensionPT60°/s, when the absolute values already had adequate accuracy (AUC>0.70), although without the desirable independence of body size. All the normalizations increased (‡) the AUC (p<0.001).
DISCUSSION
Cut-off points based on upper and lower limbs muscle strength were proposed to identify muscle weakness in older adults of both sexes. The non-normalized cut-off points for HGS and lower limbs strength were significantly associated with body size, which involves biases to assess older adults with extreme body size (e.g., heavy or short). After normalizing HGS and lower limbs strength by the ratio standard or by the allometry, the association with body size was no longer relevant. In addition, for women, the accuracy to predict mobility limitation/muscle weakness from normalized muscle strength cut-off points become acceptable when compared to non-normalized strategy. In men, muscle strength normalization did not increase accuracy. However, all normalized models of both sexes avoided biases in the assessment of muscle weakness/mobility limitation, to isolate the natural interdependence between muscle strength and body size [21].
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to propose muscle weakness cut-off points for the HGS and knee extensionPT60°/s allometrically adjusted in older adults. In a previous study, 1RMknee extensors was allometrically adjusted for body mass [23], but not according to all other potential body size variables. Indeed, we expanded the number of variables that can be used to normalize 1RMknee extensors with allometry (n=8) in order to augment model’s accuracy for identifying muscle weakness regardless of extreme body sizes. Other studies proposed muscle weakness cut-off points with HGS normalized by ratio standard (body mass or BMI) [18, 54, 55] or stratified by BMI quartiles [7]. There are also muscle weakness cut-off points for knee extensionPT60°/s normalized by body mass [19]. However, these studies did not compare the accuracy of normalized with non-normalized muscle strength to identify muscle weakness. Furthermore, they did not explore other body-size variables to normalize muscle strength.
Previous studies have proposed allometric exponents to normalize muscle strength, including HGS [20-22], 1RMknee extensors [23], knee extensionPT60°/s [25, 34], and they are comparable with the ones found in the present study. Curvilinear (allometric) relationship variables is confirmed when allometric coefficient (b) is between 0.00 and 0.99 [56], while the linear relationship is characterized when the exponent is ≥1.00 [56]. In the literature, body mass generally presents an allometric relationship with muscle strength independently of the test (HGS, 1RMknee extensors or knee extensionPT60°/s; Table 1), confirming our findings (SUPPLEMENT B), when b exponents were 0.22 (HGS), 0.44 (1RMknee extensors) and 0.37 (knee extensionPT60°/s). Contrarily, height tends to have a linear relationship (b≥1.00) with muscle strength [21], what was also confirmed by our proposed allometric exponents (SUPPLEMENT B), that were between 1.87 and 3.27.
Some strengths of our study are noteworthy. We proposed muscle weakness cut-off points for isokinetic dynamometer, considered as a “ gold standard” resource to assess lower limbs strength. The estimated 1RMknee extensors obtained with submaximal repetition protocol and the HGS are valid for older adults, even for those with muscle weakness [48, 57]. An extensive number of body-size variables (n=49) were tested in our study, expanding the possibilities to promote the normalization of performance in muscle strength tests. Furthermore, regardless of the chosen muscle strength test to evaluate weakness, our findings can be applied with sufficient accuracy (AUC>0.70) both for scientific research (knee extensionPT60°/s) and population-based monitoring (HGS and 1RMknee extensors). Nevertheless, this study is not without limitations. The individual muscle strength decline along aging may have been underestimated with the cross-sectional design. Another limitation is the small and local sample size of our study, requiring caution to extrapolate these findings inferentially to other populations.
We found greater accuracy (AUC) for normalized lower limbs strength (isokinetic dynamometer and leg extension machine) than manual dynamometer (normalized upper extremity strength), usually adopted to predict mobility limitations/muscle weakness [8]. However, the isokinetic dynamometer is expensive and generally more available in terms of research. Even though, our normalized models are also applicable in clinical practice from manual dynamometers (widely available in geriatric environments) and leg extension machines (available in most fitness centers, adequate environment for intervention against aged-related muscle weakness) [30]. The assessment of HGS and 1RMknee extensors and proper classification of muscle weakness amongst older adults should be frequent in clinical practice to better target health expending, avoiding unnecessary expenditures. Future research should observe if proposed allometric exponents can be utilized to normalize muscle strength for different older adults’ population, with other ethnicity/race characteristics.
As an applied example to avoid false positive diagnosis for muscle weakness, we hypothesize one older man with extreme lower values of body mass (42 kg), 1.57 m of height, who performed knee extensionPT60°/s of 85.2 Nm. If we consider our absolute cut-off point (≤85.4 Nm), this older man has muscle weakness confirmed. However, when considered the normalized knee extensionPT60°/s/([body mass*height]0.43), the adjusted value (14.1 Nm/kg*m) is above of the cut-off point (13.0 Nm/kg*m; Table 3). Normalization would also avoid false negative cases, for large body size of older adults. The mistaken framing of false positive weakness cases could greatly impact the financial resources in the health and older people care systems. Especially in low- and middle-income countries, where these resources are scarcer.
CONCLUSION
Upper and lower limbs muscle weakness cut-off points standardized according to body size were proposed for older adults of both sexes. The normalization has increased accuracy for identify women with muscle weakness; but not in men, whose absolute muscle strength values have an acceptable accuracy. However, normalization made muscle strength independent of body size, confirming our hypothesis and preventing bias in the evaluation of older adults with extreme body size (e.g., very low or very heavy). Forty-nine valid models were proposed for older adults of both sexes, with different possibilities of body’s normalization of muscle strength, which broadens the interpretation of muscle strength with less risk of attributing a false-positive diagnosis to muscle weakness.
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [PPA], upon reasonable request.
SUPPLEMENTS
Acknowledgements
Nothing to declare.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests The Author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding This work was supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) [through PhD scholarship number 142248/2018–5 granted to Pedro Pugliesi Abdalla]; and the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) [finance Code 001, through PhD scholarship number 88887.593242/2020-00 granted to Pedro Pugliesi Abdalla, and through scholarship number 88887.371516/2019-00 granted to Dalmo Roberto Lopes Machado]. The funding body had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.