Desempenho físico, composição corporal e incapacidade funcional em idosos de diferentes contextos epidemiológicos: resultados do estudo International Mobility in Aging Study (IMIAS)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Aging is characterized by a gradual and long-term accumulation of molecular and cellular damage that results in progressive and widespread impairment in many body functions. Among the most clinically significant changes are the muscular strength and mass (defined as sarcopenia) and increase in body adiposity that are related to the greater risk of disabilities, leading to the loss of the i functional independence. The IMIAS study aimed to analyze the difference in mobility and associated factors in older adults from different social, economic and cultural contexts. Therefore, it offers a great opportunity to examine aspects related to the aging of the musculoskeletal system, as well as factors related to functional disability in older populations that differ widely. Objectives: a) To estimate the ability of handgrip strength cut points to identify slowness in different populations of older adults; b) To identify which physical performance measures proposed for Sarcopenia screening could predict most the muscle mass in community dwelling older adults after 4 years of follow up; c) to explore the longitudinal relationship between abdominal obesity with mobility and mobility-related ADL disability controlling for physical performance and depression in older adults free from disability. Methods: This is an analytical, observational longitudinal study, where 2002 older adults were followed for 4 years of follow-up. Baseline data were collected in the year 2012. New evaluations occurred with the interval of 2 years between them, in the years 2014 and 2016. The measures of physical performance were handgrip strength and gait speed. The muscle mass was measured by of the bio impedance analysis. Functional disability measures were self-reported difficulties in tasks related to mobility and daily living activities related to mobility; the measure of obesity was defined by waist circumference. Classification Regression Trees (CART) was used to identify IMIAS cut points for grip strength associated with slowness, also multivariate logistic regressions were performed to verify the ability of cut offs stableshid by FNIH to identify slowness. Multiple linear regression was used to verify what physical performance measures at baseline predict better the SMI 4 years. We used Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) to model the longitudinal associations between mobility disability and ADL disability with abdominal obesity, adjusting for depressive symptoms and physical performance measures and remaining covariates, finally, a multinomial regression was performed to assess the predictive value of baseline abdominal obesity, depressive symptomatology, handgrip strength, gait speed, for 2016 mobility disability. Results: The handgrip strength cut-off points of <26 kg for men and <16 kg for women were able to identify slowness in walking speed in older adults participants of the IMIAS. In addition, handgrip strength measured at baseline was significantly related to muscle mass measured 4 years later (β= 0.003, p-value <0.05). Finally, the presence of abdominal obesity, was a risk factor for disability in mobility (OR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.01-2.15) after 4 years of follow-up, however was not associated with the risk of the onset of ADL disability (OR: 1.40, 95% CI 0.90-2.18). Conclusions: The proposed cutoff points for handgrip strength can be designed to be a useful tool to screening the older adults at risk of functional problems. Further, handgrip strength can be used as a simple method for screening sarcopenia in the community dwelling older adults. Finally, the presence of abdominal obesity is associated longitudinally and predicts the risk of disability in mobility, even over a short period of time (4 years) in community dwelling older adults.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».