Association of anemia with mobility capacity in older adults: a Korean nationwide population-based cross-sectional study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Over 10% of adults aged ≥65 years have anemia, as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO). As the timed up and go (TUG) test is one of the most widely used tests of mobility, this study investigated whether anemia was associated with mobility capacity assessed using the TUG test in older adults. METHODS: Subjects belonging to the Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Health Screening Cohort of the National Health Information Database were reviewed. Subjects were included if they had completed the TUG test as part of the National Screening Program for Transitional Ages in Korea. An abnormal TUG test result was defined as a time of ≥10 s and anemia was defined according to the WHO criteria as a hemoglobin (Hb) concentration of < 13.0 g/dL in men and < 12.0 g/dL in women. The association between anemia and TUG test results was evaluated using four multiple logistic regression models with different levels of adjustment. Stratified analysis according to risk factors was performed. RESULTS: The 81,473 subjects included 41,063 (50.4%) women and 40,410 (49.6%) men. Mean TUG time was 8.44 ± 3.08 s, and abnormal TUG test results were observed in 22,138 (27.2%) subjects. Mean Hb concentration was 13.72 ± 1.41 g/dL, and 10,237 (12.6%) subjects had anemia. U-shaped associations between Hb concentration and TUG test results were observed in both sexes. Subjects with anemia were 19% more likely to have abnormal TUG test results, according to the fully adjusted model (adjusted odds ratio: 1.192, 95% confidence interval: 1.137-1.247). Similar results were observed for both sexes. Stratified analysis showed that subjects with anemia were more likely to have abnormal TUG test results regardless of risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with anemia are more likely to have abnormal TUG test results, regardless of risk factors, than individuals without anemia. U-shaped relationships between Hb concentrations and TUG test results were observed in both sexes, although the optimal Hb concentration differed between men and women.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».