MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2280357446 · doi:10.1111/jgs.13962

The Healthy and Successful Aging of Our Discipline

2016· letter· en· W2280357446 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Theodore D. Cosco, Diana Kuh

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2016
Typeletter
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueAging and Gerontology Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychosocialMedicineGerontologyCoping (psychology)Successful agingHealthy agingGeriatricsClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

To the Editor: We read with great interest Friedman and colleagues' article "Failing to focus on healthy aging: A frailty of our discipline," in which the relative dearth of literature on healthy and successful aging (HSA) is discussed.1 As strong proponents of examining positive aspects of aging (in addition to lower levels of functioning), it is encouraging to see these views in print, although we have some comments on the relationship between frailty and HSA and the relative presence of HSA literature. Friedman and colleagues suggest that, "Successful aging could be characterized as a counterbalance to frailty. For example, it can be defined as good physiological reserves." We suggest that psychosocial outcomes and reserves must also be taken into consideration. The relationship between frailty and successful aging has been previously addressed in the Canadian Geriatrics Journal,2 highlighting the similarities and differences between these closely related constructs. Rather than sharing the opposite end of the same continuum, HSA occupies a space that captures physical and cognitive functioning and delaying the onset of disease but augments these perspectives with aspects of psychosocial functioning.3, 4 Reviews of lay perspectives that highlight the importance of psychosocial components, such as coping mechanisms and social networks, support these views.5, 6 Friedman and colleagues use "healthy" and "successful" aging terms, acknowledging the absence of a consensus term.7 Frailists have generally accepted "frailty" as the operative term, whereas HSA has no universally accepted term. Different groups have adopted different terms despite capturing similar phenomena as HSA; for example, the World Health Organization has identified "active aging" as its term of choice, which has led to an increase in the use of "active aging" in the European literature. Consequently, these articles may not be indexed under HSA. Friedman and colleagues present two figures showing the frequency of articles captured by frailty and healthy or successful aging key words in Medline, suggesting that frailty is the more popular topic. After using British and American spellings (ageing and aging) in the search strategy ("healthy aging" [all fields] OR "healthy ageing" [all fields] OR "successful aging" [all fields] OR "successful ageing" [all fields]), the frequency of the key words was found to be more similar than Friedman and colleagues depicted (Figure 1). Examining these trends each year from 1993 to 2014 reveals that the only notable difference is a bump in the HSA literature in 2014. Friedman and colleagues suggest that, with the burgeoning older population, an increased focus on fostering better aging trajectories is warranted but has yet to reach its full potential. We completely agree. That said, the HSA paradigm faces challenges that the frailty paradigm does not in terms of scope (including biomedical and psychosocial components) and conceptualization (absence of a consensus definition). There are many constituent components of HSA, capturing components similar to frailty (e.g., physiological functioning and reserve), as well as psychosocial components (e.g., social engagement and psychological well-being), but it is encouraging that HSA research is keeping pace with frailty and that both are on the rise. Further articulation of the HSA literature and greater focus on fostering better aging trajectories can ensure that the discipline ages well. Conflict of Interest: All authors declare no conflicts of interest. Author Contributions: Cosco: concept, writing first draft. Kuh: editing, approval of final draft. Sponsor's Role: None.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,016
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,025

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,038
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,005
Communication savante0,0060,006
Science ouverte0,0040,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0160,030
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,005

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,025
Tête enseignante GPT0,373
Écart entre enseignants0,349 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietyMême sujetAging and Gerontology ResearchTravaux en français237 207