In Reply: Estimating Appendicular Skeletal Muscle Mass in Studies Based on the CHARLS Database
Ya‐Xi Luo, Xiu‐Qing Yao

Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
- —National Natural Science Foundation of China10.13039/501100001809
- —Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing, China
- —Joint Project of Chongqing Health Commission and Science and Technology Bureau
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsNutrition and Health in Aging · Scoliosis diagnosis and treatment · Hernia repair and management
We thank Liu et al. for their commentary on our recent study exploring the bidirectional transitions of sarcopenia in older Chinese adults using CHARLS data [1]. Their letter raises several important methodological questions about the validity of estimating appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM) in large‐scale cohort studies [2]. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our approach and discuss its alignment with international standards.
We fully acknowledge that dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the reference standard for ASM measurement. However, in large, population‐based surveys such as CHARLS, DXA is not feasible due to logistical limitations and concerns regarding economic feasibility. Recognizing this, both the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS 2019) and the revised European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP2) explicitly endorse the use of validated anthropometric equations when direct imaging is unavailable [3, 4]. Our study employed the widely used equation by Wen et al., developed and validated in a Chinese adult population, which has shown strong correlation with DXA‐measured ASM [5]. This equation has been widely adopted in longitudinal CHARLS studies examining outcomes ranging from mortality to cognitive decline.
A key concern raised was the age mismatch between the derivation cohort of the Wen equation and our elderly sample. While this is a valid point, the formula includes age, sex, height and weight, accounting for key covariates influencing muscle mass. More importantly, we applied an internal standardization strategy: defining low muscle mass based on the sex‐specific 20th percentile of ASM/height^2^ within the CHARLS population. This approach is well supported in epidemiological literature. In a population‐based study, Coin et al. demonstrated that applying the 20th percentile of ASM/height^2^ for an elderly reference population provided a more sensitive and appropriate method for identifying sarcopenia‐related risk than using absolute cut‐offs derived from younger populations [6]. The choice to use internal percentiles also addresses another concern: secular trends in anthropometric variables. Instead of applying fixed cut‐offs from external cohorts or historical reference data, internal thresholds inherently reflect the specific characteristics of the study population at that time. This improves classification accuracy, especially in populations where height and body composition may shift across generations.
Liu et al. also pointed out that more comprehensive anthropometric equations, such as those incorporating calf circumference, may improve ASM prediction. We agree that these newer models represent an important methodological advance. Indeed, a recently proposed calf‐inclusive anthropometric model for older Chinese adults demonstrated strong agreement with bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) measured ASM and holds promise for improved estimation accuracy [7]. However, calf circumference is not collected in CHARLS, precluding the application of such models in our analysis. Given these data constraints, we selected the Wen equation as the most feasible and validated option for this dataset.
Moreover, our sarcopenia classification followed the AWGS 2019 consensus, incorporating muscle strength and physical performance in addition to muscle mass. This multidimensional framework mitigates the influence of any single measurement and reflects functional status. Even if ASM estimation is imperfect, the inclusion of performance‐based criteria increases robustness and clinical relevance. Notably, the observation of sarcopenia reversibility in our study is consistent with findings from the 12‐year SNAC‐K cohort, which reported meaningful two‐way transitions [8].
In population‐based epidemiology, methodologic rigour must be balanced with practicality and consistency. Our approach satisfies current best practices: It is reproducible, transparent and context sensitive. We believe it represents a sound scientific method to advance understanding of sarcopenia in aging Asian populations, while remaining open to further refinement as future waves of CHARLS incorporate new anthropometric data.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1Y. X. Luo , X. H. Zhou , T. Heng , et al., “Bidirectional Transitions of Sarcopenia States in Older Adults: The Longitudinal Evidence From CHARLS,” Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle 15, no. 5 (2024): 1915–1929.39001569 10.1002/jcsm.13541 PMC 11446714 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 2M. Liu , J. Wang , C. Yang , and G. Sun , “Estimation of Appendicular Skeletal Muscle Mass in Studies Based on CHARLS May Cause Unreliable Conclusion,” Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle 16, no. 2 (2025): e 13800.40241386 10.1002/jcsm.13800 PMC 12003915 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 3A. J. Cruz‐Jentoft , G. Bahat , J. Bauer , et al., “Sarcopenia: Revised European Consensus on Definition and Diagnosis,” Age Ageing 48, no. 4 (2019): 601.10.1093/ageing/afz 046PMC 659331731081853 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 4L. K. Chen , J. Woo , P. Assantachai , et al., “Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia: 2019 Consensus Update on Sarcopenia Diagnosis and Treatment,” Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 21 (2020): 300–307.32033882 10.1016/j.jamda.2019.12.012 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 5X. Wen , M. Wang , C. M. Jiang , and Y. M. Zhang , “Anthropometric Equation for Estimation of Appendicular Skeletal Muscle Mass in Chinese Adults,” Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition 20, no. 4 (2011): 551–556.22094840 · pubmed ↗
- 6A. Coin , S. Sarti , E. Ruggiero , et al., “Prevalence of Sarcopenia Based on Different Diagnostic Criteria Using DEXA and Appendicular Skeletal Muscle Mass Reference Values in an Italian Population Aged 20 to 80,” Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 14, no. 7 (2013): 507–512.23582341 10.1016/j.jamda.2013.02.010 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 7Y. Sun , T. Yin , M. Li , et al., “Development and Validation of Estimation Equations for Appendicular Skeletal Muscle Mass in Chinese Community‐Dwelling Older Adults,” Clinical Interventions in Aging 19 (2024): 265–276.38384404 10.2147/CIA.S 440967 PMC 10880553 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 8C. Trevisan , D. L. Vetrano , R. Calvani , A. Picca , and A. K. Welmer , “Twelve‐Year Sarcopenia Trajectories in Older Adults: Results From a Population‐Based Study,” Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle 13, no. 1 (2022): 254–263.34846095 10.1002/jcsm.12875 PMC 8818646 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
