Measurement Properties of the l Test for Gait in Hospitalized Elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the reliability, validity, and predictive value of the L test, a performance-based walk test, among older inpatients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study involving a consecutive sample of 50 older adults (mean age 84 +/- 5 yrs) admitted to the geriatric unit of a tertiary care hospital. Application of the L test twice and single application of the timed "up and go" test (TUG), and the Frailty and Injuries Cooperative Studies of Intervention Techniques (FICSIT-4) balance scale, were conducted. RESULTS: Interrater and intrarater reliability (two-way ANOVA intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC]) of the L test was 1.00 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.99-1.00) and 0.97, respectively (CI, 0.95-0.98). Hypothesized associations with the TUG and FICSIT-4 were observed (Pearson product-moment correlation, r = 0.96 and r = -0.45, respectively; P < 0.01) with regard to magnitude and direction of the relationship. L test times demonstrated a small but statistically significant independent risk factor for discharge destination after hospitalization (odds ratio = 1.05; CI, 1.01-1.09) after adjustment for age, sex, and cognitive status. CONCLUSIONS: The L test provides reliable, valid data when assessing basic walking skills among older adults in a hospital environment. The L test is potentially an important clinical and research tool to assess the mobility function of older inpatients as they transition back to the community.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".