4.5 Review

Biomarkers for physical frailty and sarcopenia

Journal

AGING CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
Volume 29, Issue 1, Pages 29-34

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s40520-016-0708-1

Keywords

Aging; Physical performance; Markers; Multivariate analysis; Skeletal muscle; Disability

Funding

  1. Innovative Medicines Initiative-Joint Undertaking [IMI-JU 115621]
  2. Centro Studi Achille e Linda Lorenzon
  3. Fondazione Roma
  4. Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
  5. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations ( EFPIA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Physical frailty (PF) and sarcopenia are major health issues in geriatric populations, given their high prevalence and association with several adverse outcomes. Nevertheless, the lack of an univocal operational definition for the two conditions has so far hampered their clinical implementation. Existing definitional ambiguities of PF and sarcopenia, together with their complex underlying pathophysiology, also account for the absence of robust biomarkers that can be used for screening, diagnostic and/or prognostication purposes. This review provides an overview of currently available biological markers for PF and sarcopenia, as well as a critical appraisal of strengths and weaknesses of traditional procedures for biomarker development in the field. A novel approach for biomarker identification and validation, based on multivariate methodologies, is also discussed. This strategy relies on the multidimensional modeling of complementary biomarkers to cope with the phenotypical and pathophysiological complexity of PF and sarcopenia. Biomarkers identified through the implementation of multivariate strategies may be used to support the detection of the two conditions, track their progression over time or in response to interventions, and reveal the onset of complications (e.g., mobility disability) at a very early stage.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available