Assessment of sarcopenia tools as predictors of falls in patients with mild to moderate Parkinson's Disease: A cohort study.
This note indexes a cited or audit-added source. It may be an original study, review, guideline, form or methods reference. Treat the specific design and the evidence below as authoritative; a source note is not automatically a primary study.
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinsp.2025.100776
Bibliographic record from the original reports
Access labels embedded in these original reference strings are historical. Current access and exact checked components are stated separately below.
Lima DP, Gomes VC, Luna JRG, Santos LTR, Almeida SB, Viana-Júnior AB, et al. Assessment of sarcopenia tools as predictors of falls in patients with mild to moderate Parkinson's Disease: A cohort study. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2025;80:100776. DOI 10.1016/j.clinsp.2025.100776
Conditions: COND-PD Parkinson’s disease
Scoped audit evidence
These are source- and component-level audit summaries as of 3 October 2026. Access and comparison scope can differ by report; none certifies every result or the underlying raw data.
Parkinson’s disease — strength
- access status: full_main_text_available
STR-59-02
STR-59-01
Limitations: Only current scoped checks; archived captures not authenticated against live originals.
Parkinson’s disease strength
- current access: full_main_text_available
- primary version: PMC full article; version not independently compared to publisher PDF
Parkinson’s disease strength component — Prospective grip values and modeling caveats
Methods/Tables match 103 participants, 48 fallers, 23 recurrent fallers, 159 falls, monthly calls, ON-state SAEHAN best-of-six protocol and all grip comparisons. Methods says logistic while Table 2 says HR. Adjusted grip is omitted; AUC.843 concerns SARC-F plus duration.
Source locator: Methods, Tables 1–4, Fig 2
Limitations: AI-assisted source comparison; no raw-data verification.
Parkinson’s disease strength component — Recurrent-class majority baseline accuracy
Non-recurrent count 103−23=80 gives 77.6699%, correctly rounded 77.67%, versus maximum reported accuracy 78.64%. This is a majority-class baseline comparison, not a replacement validated model.
Source locator: Table 1; audit evidence record
Limitations: AI-assisted source comparison; no raw-data verification.
Reports citing this source
- Strength muscle power and rapid force production assessment in Parkinson’s disease · reference 59 · original reference
Update record
- 2026-10-03: Created from the supplied reports and final scoped audit. New evidence should be appended with source version, access date, exact locator and affected report links.
Updating the wiki · Evidence and status guide