Probable Sarcopenia, Obesity, and Risk of All-Cause Mortality: A Pooled Analysis of 4,612 Participants is a dataset published in Gerontology (2023). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 0.894, placing it in the top 22.6% of the data-sharing corpus. It has been cited 23 times, with 21 citing works in its 1-hop citation network. Its calibrated FAIR score is 2/100.
Ranks in the top 23% for downstream scientific impact
DataRank reads this dataset's downstream impact straight off the citation graph — no black box, no proprietary weighting. How is this computed?
FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.
Full FAIR picture · advisory
The headline score is computed from the scored criteria — the fact-shaped checks (a repository, an accession, a licence) that two independent models agree on. The advisory criteria below are real FAIR guidance but rest on judgment calls that models read differently, so they inform without moving the number.
The paper does not provide a persistent identifier (DOI, Handle, ARK, or repository accession) for its own dataset.
RDA-F1-01D — FAIR Data Maturity Model: 'Data is identified by a persistent identifier' (priorit · RDA-F1-02D — FAIR Data Maturity Model: 'Data is identified by a globally unique identifier' · FsF-F1-02D — F-UJI/FAIRsFAIR: 'Data is assigned a persistent identifier'
“Research proposals should be submitted to the corresponding organizations/institutions responsible for the data through the instructions provided on study websites (i.e. The Health 2000 Survey, https://thl.fi/en/web/thlfi-en/research-and-development/research-and-projects/health-2000-2011 ; The Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study, https://healthabc.nia.nih.gov/ ; The Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam, https://lasa-vu.nl/en/).”— not found in the paper; verdict downgraded
The paper does not name a data repository; it names the original study organizations and their websites as the holders, which are non-repository hosts. [downgraded to 'no' — no verifiable quote from the paper]
RDA-F4-01M — FAIR Data Maturity Model: metadata is offered so it can be harvested and indexed ( · NIH DMS Policy Element 4 (NOT-OD-21-014) — name the repository where data will be archived · NSTC Desirable Characteristics of Data Repositories (2022) — 'Long-Term Sustainability', 'Reten
No identifier for the pooled dataset appears anywhere in the paper, either in the reference list or body text.
FORCE11 Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles (2014) — data should be cited as a first- · RDA-F3-01M — metadata clearly and explicitly includes the identifier of the data it describes · FsF-F3-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata includes the identifier of the data it describes'
Advisory · not in the published score
“The data used in this study are not publicly available due to containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants. The data are available for use for specific research questions provided that an agreement is made up. Research proposals should be submitted to the corresponding organizations/institutions responsible for the data through the instructions provided on study websites (i.e. The Health 2000 Survey, https://thl.fi/en/web/thlfi-en/research-and-development/research-and-projects/health-2000-2011 ; The Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study, https://healthabc.nia.nih.gov/ ; The Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam, https://lasa-vu.nl/en/). Further enquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.”— not found in the paper; verdict downgraded
The statement points to a process for obtaining data (proposal to organizations) rather than a repository record, fitting Colavizza category 1 (data available on request). [downgraded to 'no' — no verifiable quote from the paper]
Colavizza, Hrynaszkiewicz, Staden, Whitaker & McGillivray (2020), 'The citation advantage of li · Springer Nature research data policy — Data Availability Statements: standard statement templat · RDA-F3-01M — metadata clearly and explicitly includes the identifier of the data it describes
“The analytical sample for the present study was restricted to subjects aged 70 and older because of the age‐related nature of sarcopenia (n=5,595 for the pooled data). In addition, persons with BMI <22 kg/m2 at baseline were excluded (n=594) from the analyses to reduce the effects of frailty and undernutrition on mortality risk as suggested based on earlier studies [23,24]. Furthermore, the analytical sample of this study included only individuals with no missing values on any of the following variables: age, sex, grip strength, BMI and WC. Thus, the final sample size for the study was 1,085 for H2000, 2,593 for HABC, and 934 for LASA, resulting in a total of 4,612 individuals for the pooled data analyses (2,130 men and 2,482 women).”— not found in the paper; verdict downgraded
The dataset content is described in running prose (sample sizes, variables) without an itemized section or table dedicated to the pooled dataset's files or variables. [downgraded to 'no' — no verifiable quote from the paper]
RDA-F2-01M — 'Rich metadata is provided to allow discovery' (priority Essential) · FsF-F2-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata includes descriptive core elements to support data findability' · FsF-R1-01MD — F-UJI: 'Metadata specifies the content of the data'
“The data are available for use for specific research questions provided that an agreement is made up. Research proposals should be submitted to the corresponding organizations/institutions responsible for the data through the instructions provided on study websites.”— not found in the paper; verdict downgraded
The access route carries a precondition (proposal and agreement), making it not unconditional, but the process is specified and followable. [downgraded to 'no' — no verifiable quote from the paper]
RDA-A1.1-01D — 'Data is accessible through a free access protocol' · FsF-A1-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata contains access level and access conditions of the data' · NSTC Desirable Characteristics of Data Repositories (2022) — 'Free and Easy Access'
Advisory · not in the published score
“The data used in this study are not publicly available due to containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.”— not found in the paper; verdict downgraded
The paper explicitly labels the access level as 'not publicly available', which is a direct access-level label. [downgraded to 'partial' — no verifiable quote from the paper] [majority verdict 'partial' (3/5 passes agreed)]
FsF-A1-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata contains access level and access conditions of the data' · RDA-A1-01M — metadata contains information to enable the user to get access to the data · COAR Controlled Vocabularies — Access Rights v1.0 (open / embargoed / restricted / metadata-onl
“Research proposals should be submitted to the corresponding organizations/institutions responsible for the data through the instructions provided on study websites (i.e. The Health 2000 Survey, https://thl.fi/en/web/thlfi-en/research-and-development/research-and-projects/health-2000-2011 ; The Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study, https://healthabc.nia.nih.gov/ ; The Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam, https://lasa-vu.nl/en/).”— not found in the paper; verdict downgraded
The paper names the original study organizations and institutions as the gatekeepers through a defined proposal process, which is an institutional route. [downgraded to 'partial' — no verifiable quote from the paper]
NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy (NOT-OD-14-124) — controlled-access via a Data Access Committee · RDA-A1.2-01D — 'Data is accessible through an access protocol that supports authentication and · NIH DMS Policy Element 5 (NOT-OD-21-014) — Access, Distribution, or Reuse Considerations (conse
No statement about retention period or persistence of the data is made in the text.
NIH DMS Plan Element 4 (NOT-OD-21-014) — Data Preservation, Access, and Associated Timelines · NSTC Desirable Characteristics (2022), Organizational Infrastructure: 'Retention Policy' · RDA-A2-01M — 'Metadata is guaranteed to remain available after data is no longer available'
No file format is named for the released data; the data are not publicly available.
FsF-R1.3-02D — F-UJI: 'Data is available in a file format recommended by the target research co · RDA-R1.3-02D — data is expressed in a machine-understandable community standard · RDA-I1-01D — data uses a knowledge representation expressed in a standardised format
Advisory · not in the published score
“In this study, we use the term probable sarcopenia to refer to our indicator on grip strength below the cut-off points of <27 kg in men and <16 kg in women. These cut-off points were obtained from the revised European consensus definition on sarcopenia (EWGSOP2 working group) indicating probable sarcopenia.”— not found in the paper; verdict downgraded
The paper applies the EWGSOP2 definition, a community standard for sarcopenia diagnosis, and also uses WHO criteria for obesity. [downgraded to 'partial' — no verifiable quote from the paper] [majority verdict 'partial' (3/5 passes agreed)]
RDA-R1.3-01M — 'Metadata complies with a community standard' (priority Essential) · RDA-R1.3-01D — 'Data complies with a community standard' · RDA-I2-01M — '(Meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles'
The paper provides URLs for study websites but no persistent identifiers (DOI, accession, RRID) for any external resource used.
RDA-I3-01M — '(meta)data include references to other (meta)data' · RDA-I3-03M — 'metadata includes qualified references to other metadata' · FsF-I3-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata includes links between the data and its related entities'
No licence or terms of use are named for the data.
RDA-R1.1-01M — 'Metadata includes information about the licence under which the data can be reu · RDA-R1.1-02M — 'Metadata refers to a standard reuse licence' · RDA-R1.1-03M — 'Metadata refers to a machine-understandable reuse licence'
“Mortality among the participants of the three studies was followed until the date of death or end of follow-up, i.e. 31th December in 2015 for H2000, 1st June in 2015 for HABC, and 1st August in 2018 for LASA.”— not found in the paper; verdict downgraded
The paper identifies the data snapshot by the end-of-follow-up dates, but no version token is given. [downgraded to 'no' — no verifiable quote from the paper]
DataCite Metadata Schema 4.6 — the 'Version' property · RDA-R1.2-01M — provenance information (which version was used is provenance) · NSTC Desirable Characteristics of Data Repositories (2022) — 'Provenance', 'Retention Policy'
No code availability statement is provided; only software names are mentioned, but no locator for the code.
NIH DMS Policy Element 2 (NOT-OD-21-014) — 'Related Tools, Software and/or Code' · FAIR4RS Principles v1.0 (Chue Hong et al., 2022; RDA/FORCE11/ReSA) — FAIR Principles for Resear · FORCE11 Software Citation Principles (Smith, Katz & Niemeyer, 2016, PeerJ CS 2:e86)
Specific grant numbers are provided, e.g., 'Academy of Finland grant number 321625'. [downgraded to 'partial' — no verifiable quote from the paper] [majority verdict 'partial' (3/5 passes agreed)]
DataCite Metadata Schema 4.6 — 'FundingReference' property (funderName, funderIdentifier, award · Crossref Funder Registry — canonical funder identifiers for funding metadata · RDA-F2-01M — rich metadata provided to allow discovery (funding is part of the descriptive reco
Advisory · not in the published score
“In each study, grip strength was measured with a hand-held dynamometer, adjusted for hand size for each participant (H2000, dominant hand: Good Strength, IGS01, Metitur Oy, Jyväskylä, Finland; HABC, each hand: Jamar, TEC, Clifton, NJ, USA; LASA, each hand: Takei TKK 5001, Takei Scientific Instruments Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan).”— not found in the paper; verdict downgraded
The paper names specific instruments (dynamometer models) used to produce the data. [downgraded to 'partial' — no verifiable quote from the paper]
RDA-R1.2-01M — 'Metadata includes provenance information according to community- specific standa · FsF-R1.2-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata includes provenance information about data creation or generati · W3C PROV-O (W3C Recommendation, 2013) — the entity/activity/agent model of provenance
“Table 2. Baseline characteristics of the study populations.”
Variable definitions exist inside the article's tables and methods, but no separate codebook is said to accompany the data. [majority verdict 'partial' (4/5 passes agreed)]
RDA-R1-01M — '(Meta)data are richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attribu · FsF-R1-01MD — F-UJI: 'Metadata specifies the content of the data' · NIH DMS Policy Element 3 (NOT-OD-21-014) — Standards (documentation and metadata to accompany t
Calibrated FAIR score — a parallel quality metric, independent of the DataRank citation score. See the full evaluation →
Base Score Contribution
0.477
From this paper's citation signal
Citation Network Contribution
0.417
From 17 citing papers with measurable signal
Ranked by each citer's contribution to N(p) — log1p(Cq) divided by its reference count — out of 21 citers.
NINR NIH HHS
Grant: R01 NR012459
NIA NIH HHS
Grant: R01 AG028050
FWCI
3.29
Citation Percentile
0.9%
Citation Trend
Fields of Study
MeSH Terms
Keywords
Sustainable Development Goals