Sarcopenia is associated with loss of muscle mass as well as an increased risk of physical disability in elderly people. This study was aimed to investigate the effect of elastic band resistance training (ERT) on muscle mass and physical function in older women with sarcopenic obesity. A randomized controlled trial with an intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. A total of 56 women (mean ± SD age 67.3 ± 5.1 years) were randomly assigned to the experimental group receiving 12 weeks of ERT and to the control group receiving no exercise intervention. Lean mass (measured using a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometer), physical capacity (assessed using the global physical capacity score), and a 36-item short form questionnaire were conducted at the baseline examination (T0), as well as the 3-month (T1) and 9-month followups (T2). At T1 and T2, the between-group difference was measured in total skeletal mass relative to T0, with mean differences of 0.70 kg (95% CI 0.12–1.28; P < 0.05) and 0.72 kg (95% CI 0.21–1.23; P < 0.01), respectively. Similar results were found in muscle quality, physical capacity, and physical function outcomes. The ERT exerted a significant beneficial effect on muscle mass, muscle quality, and physical function in older women with sarcopenic obesity.

(1) Background: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) and aging are associated with high sarcopenia risk; sarcopenia may further affect outcomes after total knee replacement (TKR). Elastic resistance exercise training (RET) limits muscle attenuation in older adults. We aimed to identify the effects of post-TKR elastic RET on lean mass (LM) and functional outcomes in overweight and obese older women with KOA by using the brief International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Set for osteoarthritis (Brief-ICF-OA). (2) Methods: Eligible women aged ≥60 years who had received unilateral primary TKR were randomly divided into an experimental group (EG), which received postoperative RET twice weekly for 12 weeks, and a control group (CG), which received standard care. The primary and secondary outcome measures were LM and physical capacity, respectively, and were linked to the Brief-ICF-OA. The assessment time points were 2 weeks prior to surgery (T0) and postoperative at 1 month (T1; before RET) and 4 months (T2; upon completion of RET) of follow-up. An independent t test with an intention-to-treat analysis was conducted to determine the between-group differences in changes of outcome measures at T1 and T2 from T0. (3) Results: Forty patients (age: 70.9 ± 7.3 years) were randomly assigned to the EG (n = 20) or CG (n = 20). At T2, the EG exhibited significantly greater improvements in leg LM (mean difference (MD) = 0.86 kg, p = 0.004) and gait speed (MD = 0.26 m/s, p = 0.005) compared with the CG. Furthermore, the EG generally obtained significantly higher odds ratios than the CG for treatment success for most Brief-ICF-OA categories (all p < 0.001). Conclusions: Early intervention of elastic RET after TKR yielded positive postoperative outcomes based on the Brief-ICF-OA. The findings of this study may facilitate clinical decision-making regarding the optimal post-TKR rehabilitation strategy for older women with KOA.

Despite numerous investigations of the prevalence effect on medical image perception, little research has been done to examine the effect of expertise, and its possible interaction with prevalence. In this study, medical practitioners were instructed to detect the presence of hip fracture in 50 X-ray images with either high prevalence (Nsignal = 40) or low prevalence (Nsignal = 10). Results showed that compared to novices (e.g., pediatricians, dentists, neurologists), the manipulation of prevalence shifted participant’s criteria in a different direction for experts who perform hip fracture diagnosis on a daily basis. That is, when prevalence rate is low (pfracture-present = 0.2), experts held more conservative criteria in answering “fracture-present,” whereas novices were more likely to believe there was fracture. Importantly, participants’ detection discriminability did not vary by the prevalence condition. In addition, all participants were more conservative with “fracture-present” responses when task difficulty increased. We suspect the apparent opposite criteria shift between experts and novices may have come from medical training that made novices to believe that a miss would result in larger cost compared to false positive, or because they failed to update their prior belief about the signal prevalence in the task, both would suggest that novices and experts may have different beliefs in placing the optimal strategy in the hip fracture diagnosis. Our work can contribute to medical education training as well as other applied clinical diagnosis that aims to mitigate the prevalence effect.