Physical inactivity, depressive symptoms, and progression to sarcopenia in older adults: a 4-year longitudinal study

Table of Contents

Overall Summary

Study Background and Main Findings

This longitudinal study investigated the combined association of physical inactivity and depressive symptoms with sarcopenia progression in community-dwelling older adults over 4 years. The key statistical finding was that the group with both physical inactivity and depressive symptoms had a significantly higher risk of progressing to sarcopenia, with an odds ratio of 1.64 (95% CI 1.11-2.44, p = 0.014) compared to the control group. Notably, neither physical inactivity nor depressive symptoms alone showed a significant association with sarcopenia progression.

Research Impact and Future Directions

The study provides compelling evidence that the combination of physical inactivity and depressive symptoms significantly increases the risk of sarcopenia progression in older adults, while neither factor alone showed a significant association. This underscores a crucial distinction between correlation and causation, highlighting that the interaction between these factors is key to sarcopenia development.

The findings have significant practical utility, emphasizing the need for integrated interventions that address both physical and mental health to effectively prevent sarcopenia. This aligns with existing research highlighting the bidirectional relationship between physical inactivity and depression, suggesting a synergistic effect on sarcopenia risk. The study's longitudinal design and mediation analysis further strengthen its contribution to the field.

However, the reliance on self-reported measures and the specific population studied introduce uncertainties. Future research should incorporate objective measures of physical activity and explore these associations in diverse populations. Clinicians should consider screening for both physical inactivity and depressive symptoms in older adults and tailor interventions accordingly, while public health initiatives should promote both physical and mental well-being.

Critical unanswered questions remain regarding the specific biological mechanisms underlying the observed associations. Future studies should investigate the role of inflammatory markers, neurotrophic factors, and other potential mediators. While the methodological limitations, particularly the reliance on self-reported data, may affect the precision of the estimates, they do not fundamentally undermine the conclusion that addressing both physical inactivity and depressive symptoms is crucial for sarcopenia prevention. The study's strengths, including its longitudinal design and large sample size, provide a solid foundation for these findings.

Critical Analysis and Recommendations

Novel Findings on Combined Risk Factors (written-content)
The study demonstrates that the combination of physical inactivity and depressive symptoms significantly increases sarcopenia risk, unlike previous research focusing on these factors individually - this highlights the need for integrated interventions addressing both physical and mental health to effectively prevent sarcopenia.
Section: Discussion
Robust Longitudinal Design (written-content)
The 4-year longitudinal design allows for examining the temporal relationship between inactivity, depression, and sarcopenia - this provides stronger evidence for potential causal links compared to cross-sectional studies, enhancing the study's impact.
Section: Discussion
Comprehensive Statistical Approach (written-content)
The use of logistic regression and multiple imputation techniques indicates a robust statistical approach - this strengthens the validity of the findings by appropriately addressing the research question and handling missing data effectively.
Section: Abstract
Inclusion of Mediation Analysis (written-content)
The mediation analysis exploring depressive symptoms as a mediator between inactivity and sarcopenia adds depth - this provides valuable insights into potential mechanisms, suggesting that addressing depressive symptoms may help mitigate sarcopenia risk associated with inactivity.
Section: Results
Expand on Potential Mechanisms (written-content)
The discussion lacks a detailed exploration of the biological and psychological mechanisms linking inactivity, depression, and sarcopenia - elaborating on the roles of neurotrophins, oxidative stress, inflammation, and lifestyle factors would provide a more comprehensive understanding and foundation for targeted interventions.
Section: Discussion
Address Limitations of Self-Reported Measures (written-content)
The reliance on self-reported physical inactivity and depressive symptoms introduces potential recall and social desirability biases - incorporating objective measures (e.g., accelerometry) and standardized diagnostic interviews for depression in future studies would enhance the validity and reliability of the findings.
Section: Discussion
Discuss Implications for Interventions (written-content)
The discussion lacks specific recommendations for clinical practice and public health interventions - providing detailed guidance on integrated interventions addressing both physical inactivity and depressive symptoms would enhance the practical relevance and impact of the study.
Section: Discussion
Clarify Physical Inactivity Assessment (written-content)
The abstract lacks specific details on the assessment of physical inactivity - specifying the exact wording of the questions used would enhance clarity, reproducibility, and comparability with other studies.
Section: Abstract
Specify Muscle Mass Measurement Technique (written-content)
The methods section lacks details on the technique used to measure muscle mass - specifying the method used (e.g., bioelectrical impedance analysis) and providing details on the calculation of the skeletal muscle mass index (SMI) would enhance reproducibility and allow for better comparison with other studies.
Section: Material and methods
Provide Context for Odds Ratio (written-content)
The abstract presents the odds ratio without specifying the reference group - clearly stating that the odds ratio compares the risk in the inactive/depressive symptoms group to the control group would significantly improve the reader's understanding of the main findings.
Section: Abstract

Section Analysis

Abstract

Key Aspects

Strengths

Suggestions for Improvement

Introduction

Key Aspects

Strengths

Suggestions for Improvement

Material and methods

Key Aspects

Strengths

Suggestions for Improvement

Non-Text Elements

Fig. 1. Participant flow in this study.MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination;...
Full Caption

Fig. 1. Participant flow in this study.MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; ADL, Activity of Daily Living.

Figure/Table Image (Page 3)
Fig. 1. Participant flow in this study.MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; ADL, Activity of Daily Living.
First Reference in Text
Missing data were imputed 50 times (m = 50), generating 50 imputed data sets (Fig. 1).
Description
  • Purpose of the flow diagram: This flow diagram, labeled as Figure 1, visually illustrates the journey of participants throughout the study. It starts with the initial number of people enrolled and then shows how that number changes as people are excluded or drop out for various reasons, ultimately leading to the final number of participants included in the study's analysis. Think of it like a map showing the path people took in the study, with some taking different turns and leaving the main path.
  • Initial enrollment: The diagram begins with a box indicating the starting number of participants assessed at the beginning of the study. This is the total pool of individuals considered for inclusion.
  • Exclusion criteria: The diagram then presents reasons why some participants were excluded. "Exclusion criteria" are the specific rules that determine if a person cannot be included in the study. For instance, if the study is about a heart medication, someone with kidney problems might be excluded because the medication could affect them differently. These criteria are listed with the number of participants affected by each, such as having a certain health problem or not meeting a specific test score threshold, like the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), which is a test used to measure cognitive impairment, like memory and attention problems, in a simple way, or an inability to perform an Activity of Daily Living (ADL), which is a basic everyday task like eating or dressing yourself.
  • Follow-up assessment: The diagram shows how many participants were lost to follow-up, meaning they could not be re-assessed at the later stage of the study. Imagine sending a letter to all participants for a second meeting, but some letters are returned because the person moved away, and you can't find their new address.
  • Missing data and imputation: The diagram indicates the number of participants with missing data, which means some information needed for the analysis was not available for these individuals. To handle this, a technique called "multiple imputation" was used. Multiple imputation is like making educated guesses to fill in the blanks. Imagine you have a survey, and someone didn't answer question 5. Instead of throwing away their whole survey, you look at how others with similar answers answered question 5 and make an educated guess about what this person might have said. This is done multiple times (50 times in this study), creating 50 slightly different complete datasets to account for the uncertainty of the guesses.
  • Final sample size: Finally, the diagram concludes with the number of participants included in the final analysis, both with complete data and with imputed data. This is the group of individuals whose data was used to draw conclusions in the study.
Scientific Validity
  • Appropriateness of exclusion criteria: The exclusion criteria listed (health problems, ADL limitations, MMSE score, missing data, sarcopenia at baseline) are generally appropriate for a study focused on sarcopenia progression. However, the specific threshold for MMSE (≤ 18) could be further justified, as different cutoffs are used in the literature.
  • Handling of missing data: The use of multiple imputation (MI) to address missing data is a scientifically sound approach. Generating 50 imputed datasets is generally considered sufficient to provide stable estimates. The authors should, however, provide more details on the imputation model used, including the variables included in the model.
  • Transparency of participant attrition: The flow diagram provides a transparent overview of participant attrition at each stage. This transparency is crucial for assessing potential biases introduced by participant dropout or exclusion. The high number of participants not receiving follow-up assessment (n = 1,471) is a potential limitation and should be discussed in the limitations section.
Communication
  • Clarity of visual presentation: The flow diagram is generally clear and easy to follow. The boxes are clearly labeled, and the arrows indicate the flow of participants through the study. The use of numbers within each box provides a quantitative overview of participant attrition.
  • Completeness of information: While the diagram provides a good overview, it could be improved by including more specific information within each exclusion category. For example, under "Health problem," it could briefly list the specific conditions (Dementia, Parkinson's, Stroke).
  • Conciseness of caption: The caption is concise and accurately describes the content of the figure. The abbreviations MMSE and ADL are defined, which is essential for reader comprehension.

Results

Key Aspects

Strengths

Suggestions for Improvement

Non-Text Elements

Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of participants with and without...
Full Caption

Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of participants with and without progression to sarcopenia.

Figure/Table Image (Page 4)
Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of participants with and without progression to sarcopenia.
First Reference in Text
Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of participants with and without progression to sarcopenia.
Description
  • Purpose of the table: This table compares the initial characteristics of two groups of people: those who developed sarcopenia during the study and those who did not. Sarcopenia is a condition where you gradually lose muscle mass and strength, often as you get older. Think of it like comparing the starting stats of two sports teams at the beginning of a season to see if any differences might predict who will win more games later on.
  • Baseline characteristics: These are the characteristics of the participants measured at the start of the study, before anyone developed sarcopenia. They are like the players' height, weight, and past performance stats collected before the season begins. Examples include age, sex (whether they are male or female), Body Mass Index (BMI) which is a measure of body fat based on height and weight, and scores on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), which is a test that checks for memory and thinking problems.
  • Two datasets: Complete and Imputed: The table presents data in two different ways: "Complete data" and "Imputed data." "Complete data" refers to the information collected from participants who had no missing information. "Imputed data" includes everyone, even those who had some missing information. For the missing pieces, the researchers made educated guesses using a method called multiple imputation, which is like filling in the blanks based on patterns from the complete data. So, you have one set of data with no guesses and another that includes some carefully made guesses to fill in the gaps.
  • Statistical comparison: The table uses statistical tests to see if there are significant differences between the two groups (those who did and did not develop sarcopenia) at the beginning of the study. The p-value is used to represent statistical significance. The p-value is like a probability score that tells you how likely it is that the differences you see between the groups happened just by chance. A low p-value (typically less than 0.05) means it's unlikely the differences are due to chance, suggesting a real difference between the groups.
  • Variables included: The table includes a range of variables like age, sex, BMI, education level, MMSE score, whether someone lives alone, presence of diseases like heart disease or diabetes, number of medications taken, drinking and smoking habits, physical inactivity, and depressive symptoms. It's like a list of factors that might influence whether someone develops sarcopenia.
Scientific Validity
  • Relevance of variables: The variables chosen for comparison are relevant to the research question, as they represent potential risk factors or correlates of sarcopenia. The inclusion of both demographic, clinical, and lifestyle factors provides a comprehensive overview of potential baseline differences.
  • Statistical methods: The use of Student's t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables is appropriate for comparing baseline characteristics between two groups. The reporting of p-values allows for an assessment of the statistical significance of observed differences.
  • Imputation method: Presenting both complete case and imputed data analyses is a strength, as it allows readers to assess the potential impact of missing data on the baseline comparisons. However, the specific details of the imputation model should be provided in the methods section for full transparency.
  • Potential for confounding: While the table identifies several statistically significant differences at baseline, it is important to note that these differences do not necessarily imply causation. Further analysis, such as multivariable regression, is needed to control for potential confounding factors and assess the independent association between these baseline characteristics and the risk of developing sarcopenia.
Communication
  • Table layout and organization: The table is well-organized, with clear headings and subheadings. The use of separate columns for participants with and without sarcopenia progression facilitates comparison. The presentation of both complete case and imputed data analyses in adjacent columns enhances clarity.
  • Variable labeling: Most variables are clearly labeled and easy to understand. However, some abbreviations (e.g., BMI, MMSE) could be spelled out in the table footnote for improved clarity, although they were explained in the text.
  • Statistical notation: The use of mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables and numbers (%) for categorical variables is standard and appropriate. The p-values are clearly indicated, allowing readers to quickly identify statistically significant differences.
  • Caption clarity: The caption is concise and accurately describes the content of the table. It clearly states that the table presents baseline characteristics and specifies the two groups being compared.
Table 2 shows the baseline characteristics of the four groups, comprising a...
Full Caption

Table 2 shows the baseline characteristics of the four groups, comprising a total of 4,121 participants.

Figure/Table Image (Page 4)
Table 2 shows the baseline characteristics of the four groups, comprising a total of 4,121 participants.
First Reference in Text
Table 2 shows the baseline characteristics of the four groups, comprising a total of 4,121 participants.
Description
  • Purpose of the table: This table breaks down the starting characteristics of the study participants, who are divided into four distinct groups. Think of it like sorting athletes into four teams and then comparing the average age, height, and other stats of each team at the start of the season.
  • Four groups based on inactivity and depression: The participants are categorized into four groups based on two factors: whether they are physically inactive and whether they have depressive symptoms. "Physically inactive" means they don't exercise regularly. "Depressive symptoms" means they show signs of depression, a mental health condition that can affect mood, energy levels, and daily functioning. It's like sorting the athletes based on whether they train regularly and whether they show signs of low motivation or sadness.
  • Baseline characteristics: These are the characteristics measured at the beginning of the study, like age, sex, Body Mass Index (BMI), which is a measure of body fat, education level, and scores on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), a test for memory and thinking problems. It's like collecting information about each athlete's age, height, weight, years of schooling, and results on a cognitive test before the season starts.
  • Statistical comparison: The table uses statistical tests to see if there are significant differences between the four groups at the start of the study. It uses p-values to show if any differences are likely real or just due to random chance. A low p-value (usually below 0.05) suggests a real difference. It's like using statistics to see if one team is significantly older or taller than the others, and whether that difference is likely meaningful or just a coincidence.
  • Post-hoc tests: When the initial statistical tests show a significant difference among the four groups, post-hoc tests are used to determine which specific groups differ from each other. It's like if you find that the average height is different among the four teams, you then do further tests to see which specific teams are taller or shorter than the others. These tests help pinpoint where the significant differences lie.
Scientific Validity
  • Relevance of grouping variables: The grouping variables, physical inactivity and depressive symptoms, are central to the research question and are appropriate for investigating their combined association with sarcopenia progression. The operational definitions of these variables are provided in the methods section and appear to be reasonable.
  • Appropriateness of statistical tests: The use of one-way ANOVA for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables is appropriate for comparing baseline characteristics across multiple groups. The use of post-hoc tests (Tukey and Games-Howell) to identify specific group differences is also appropriate.
  • Potential for confounding: While the table identifies several statistically significant baseline differences between the groups, it is important to note that these differences may confound the association between the grouping variables and sarcopenia progression. Further multivariable analyses are necessary to adjust for these potential confounders.
  • Sample size: The large sample size (n=4,121) provides adequate statistical power to detect meaningful differences between the groups.
Communication
  • Table layout and organization: The table is well-organized, with clear headings for each group and each variable. The use of separate columns for each group facilitates comparisons. However, the table is quite wide, which may make it difficult to read on some devices.
  • Variable labeling: The variables are generally clearly labeled. However, as in Table 1, some abbreviations (e.g., BMI, MMSE) could be spelled out in the table footnote for improved clarity.
  • Statistical notation: The use of mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables and numbers (%) for categorical variables is standard and appropriate. The p-values are clearly indicated, and the use of superscripts to denote significant post-hoc comparisons is helpful.
  • Caption clarity: The caption is concise and accurately describes the content of the table. It clearly states that the table presents baseline characteristics and specifies the number of participants in each group.
Table 3 shows the baseline characteristics of the four groups, comprising a...
Full Caption

Table 3 shows the baseline characteristics of the four groups, comprising a total of 4,121 participants.

Figure/Table Image (Page 4)
Table 3 shows the baseline characteristics of the four groups, comprising a total of 4,121 participants.
First Reference in Text
The results of the logistic regression analysis examining the joint effects of physical inactivity and depressive symptoms on progression to sarcopenia are shown in Table 3.
Description
  • Purpose of the table: This table shows the results of a statistical test called logistic regression. Logistic regression is like trying to predict the odds of something happening, in this case, whether someone will develop sarcopenia, which is a loss of muscle mass and strength. It's like trying to predict the probability of a sports team winning a game based on various factors like their past performance and the strength of their opponents.
  • Logistic regression: Logistic regression is a statistical method used to predict the probability of a binary outcome, meaning an outcome with only two possibilities, like yes or no, win or lose. In this study, the outcome is whether or not someone develops sarcopenia. The analysis looks at how different factors, like physical inactivity and depressive symptoms, influence the odds of developing sarcopenia.
  • Odds ratios (ORs): The table presents odds ratios (ORs), which are a measure of how much a particular factor increases or decreases the odds of an outcome. An OR greater than 1 means the factor increases the odds, an OR less than 1 means it decreases the odds, and an OR of 1 means it has no effect. It's like saying that if a team has a star player (a factor), their odds of winning might be twice as high (OR = 2).
  • Confidence intervals (CIs): The table also shows confidence intervals (CIs) for each OR. A CI is a range of values that likely contains the true OR. A 95% CI means that if we repeated the study many times, 95% of the CIs calculated would contain the true OR. It's like saying we're 95% sure that the true odds of winning are between 1.5 and 2.5 times higher because of the star player.
  • Crude and adjusted models: The table shows results from both "crude" and "adjusted" models. A crude model looks at the relationship between one factor and the outcome without considering other factors. An adjusted model considers multiple factors at once, controlling for their potential influence. It's like first looking at how a star player affects the odds of winning without considering the opponent's strength, and then looking at it again while also considering how strong the opponent is.
  • Complete data and imputed data: The table presents results for both complete data (only participants with no missing information) and imputed data (including participants with some missing information that was filled in using educated guesses). This allows us to see if the results are consistent when including everyone, even those with some missing data.
Scientific Validity
  • Appropriateness of logistic regression: Logistic regression is an appropriate statistical method for this study because the outcome variable (progression to sarcopenia) is binary. The use of both crude and adjusted models allows for an assessment of the independent association between physical inactivity, depressive symptoms, and sarcopenia progression, while controlling for potential confounders.
  • Selection of covariates: The adjusted model includes relevant covariates, such as age, sex, BMI, education level, MMSE score, living alone, comorbidities, medications, and drinking and smoking status. These variables are potential confounders that could influence both the exposure variables (physical inactivity and depressive symptoms) and the outcome variable (sarcopenia progression).
  • Interpretation of odds ratios: The odds ratios are correctly interpreted as the change in odds of sarcopenia progression associated with each exposure variable. The 95% confidence intervals provide a measure of the precision of the estimated odds ratios.
  • Imputation method: The presentation of results from both complete case and imputed data analyses is a strength. However, the specific details of the imputation model should be provided in the methods section to ensure transparency and reproducibility.
Communication
  • Table layout and organization: The table is well-organized, with clear headings for each group and each model. The use of separate columns for complete data and imputed data facilitates comparison. However, the table is quite dense, which may make it difficult for some readers to follow.
  • Variable labeling: The variables are generally clearly labeled, although the abbreviation "OR" could be spelled out in the table footnote for improved clarity.
  • Statistical notation: The use of odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals is standard and appropriate. The p-values are clearly indicated, allowing readers to quickly identify statistically significant associations.
  • Caption accuracy: The provided caption does not match the content of Table 3, as it describes Table 2 instead. The correct caption should state that Table 3 presents the results of logistic regression analyses examining the joint effects of physical inactivity and depressive symptoms on sarcopenia progression. This is a major error in communication.
Fig. 2. Mediation model of the indirect and direct association of physical...
Full Caption

Fig. 2. Mediation model of the indirect and direct association of physical inactivity with progression to sarcopenia through depressive symptoms.ẞ, unstandardized coefficient; CI, confidence interval

Figure/Table Image (Page 5)
Fig. 2. Mediation model of the indirect and direct association of physical inactivity with progression to sarcopenia through depressive symptoms.ẞ, unstandardized coefficient; CI, confidence interval
First Reference in Text
This implies the presence of partial mediation (Fig. 2).
Description
  • Purpose of the diagram: This diagram illustrates a statistical concept called mediation. Mediation is like figuring out how one thing leads to another through a middle step. In this case, the diagram is trying to show how physical inactivity might lead to sarcopenia (muscle loss) directly, but also indirectly by first causing depressive symptoms, which in turn contribute to sarcopenia. It's like saying that not exercising might make you lose muscle directly, but it might also make you depressed, and that depression then makes you lose muscle.
  • Mediation model: A mediation model is a statistical model that tries to explain the relationship between three variables: an independent variable (the cause), a dependent variable (the effect), and a mediator variable (the middle step). In this diagram, physical inactivity is the independent variable, sarcopenia is the dependent variable, and depressive symptoms are the mediator variable.
  • Direct and indirect paths: The diagram shows two paths from physical inactivity to sarcopenia. The "direct" path is a straight arrow from physical inactivity to sarcopenia, representing the direct effect of not exercising on muscle loss. The "indirect" path goes from physical inactivity to depressive symptoms and then to sarcopenia, representing the indirect effect of not exercising on muscle loss through its impact on depression. It is like saying there are two ways to get from Point A to Point C: either directly or by first going to Point B and then from Point B to Point C.
  • Unstandardized coefficients (β): The diagram includes numbers next to the arrows, which are called unstandardized coefficients (β). These numbers represent the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables. For example, a β of 0.85 between physical inactivity and depressive symptoms means that more physical inactivity is strongly associated with more depressive symptoms. The bigger the number (ignoring the sign), the stronger the effect.
  • Statistical significance (p-value): The diagram also includes p-values next to the coefficients. A p-value is a measure of how likely it is that the observed relationship is due to random chance. A low p-value (typically less than 0.05) means it's unlikely the relationship is due to chance, suggesting a real effect. It's like saying there's strong evidence that the relationship between two variables is not just a coincidence.
  • Indirect effect and confidence interval: The diagram shows the "indirect effect" of physical inactivity on sarcopenia through depressive symptoms, which is calculated by multiplying the coefficients along the indirect path. The confidence interval (CI) for the indirect effect is a range of values that likely contains the true indirect effect. It's like saying we're 95% sure that the true indirect effect is between these two numbers.
Scientific Validity
  • Appropriateness of mediation analysis: Mediation analysis is an appropriate technique to investigate the proposed theoretical model, where depressive symptoms are hypothesized to mediate the relationship between physical inactivity and sarcopenia progression. The use of the PROCESS macro for SPSS is a standard and widely accepted method for conducting mediation analysis.
  • Model specification: The model is correctly specified, with physical inactivity as the independent variable, depressive symptoms as the mediator, and sarcopenia progression as the dependent variable. The direct and indirect paths are clearly defined and correspond to the hypothesized relationships.
  • Statistical significance of paths: All paths in the model are statistically significant (p < 0.001 for the paths from physical inactivity to depressive symptoms and from depressive symptoms to sarcopenia; p = 0.017 for the direct path from physical inactivity to sarcopenia), providing support for the proposed mediation model.
  • Interpretation of indirect effect: The indirect effect is statistically significant (β = 0.06, 95% CI: 0.02-0.10), indicating that depressive symptoms partially mediate the relationship between physical inactivity and sarcopenia progression. The use of bootstrapping to estimate the confidence interval for the indirect effect is appropriate.
  • Consideration of alternative models: While the proposed model is supported by the data, it is important to consider alternative models, such as a model where physical inactivity mediates the relationship between depressive symptoms and sarcopenia progression. This could be explored in future analyses.
Communication
  • Clarity of visual presentation: The diagram is generally clear and easy to understand. The use of arrows to represent the direct and indirect paths is intuitive, and the labeling of variables is clear and consistent.
  • Inclusion of relevant information: The diagram includes all the necessary information to interpret the results of the mediation analysis, including the unstandardized coefficients, p-values, and the indirect effect with its confidence interval.
  • Caption accuracy: The caption accurately describes the content of the figure and defines the abbreviations used.
  • Potential for improvement: The diagram could be improved by adding a title that summarizes the main finding, such as "Depressive symptoms partially mediate the association between physical inactivity and sarcopenia progression." Additionally, providing a brief explanation of how to interpret the unstandardized coefficients in the caption or figure legend could further enhance reader comprehension.

Discussion

Key Aspects

Strengths

Suggestions for Improvement

Conclusion

Key Aspects

Strengths

Suggestions for Improvement

↑ Back to Top