Back

The heterogeneity of age-related muscle atrophy of lower limb muscles

Connelly, C. D.; Folland, J. P.; Piasecki, M.; Skarabot, J.

2026-09-22 physiology
10.64898/2026.09.15.751873 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Age-related skeletal muscle atrophy differs between upper and lower body muscles and may also differ between lower limb muscles, but these muscle-specific patterns remain poorly characterised. We acquired axial 3T magnetic resonance images from sex-balanced samples of thirty young (24+/-4 years) and thirty older adults (73+/-4 years). Muscle volume of seventeen lower limb muscles/compartments was quantified using manual segmentation and expressed as absolute volume, relative to body mass, and as a percentage of total muscle volume. Absolute muscle volume was lower in older adults in 13 out of 17 muscles compared to young, with substantial heterogeneity in the effect sizes (d=0.01-3.36). Age group * muscle interaction contrasts revealed muscle-specific age-related differences in volume. Three of the quadriceps muscles demonstrated greater age-related atrophy compared to several other muscles (e.g. vastus lateralis differing from 14 of the other 16 muscles; d[≥]1.54). Conversely, the anterior and deep posterior compartments of the shank and biceps femoris short head showed significantly smaller age-related atrophy than several other muscles. These interaction effects were exacerbated when expressed in relative terms. Consequently, three of four shank compartments, gluteus maximus and adductor magnus represented a greater proportion of total muscle volume in older adults, whereas the vastus lateralis, vastus intermedius, rectus femoris, semitendinosus, gracilis, and iliopsoas contributed a smaller proportion in older adults. These findings highlight the variability in age-related leg muscle atrophy in a large mixed sex cohort, resulting in a redistribution of muscle volume in the lower limb.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.