Gender Differences in Lower Extremity Function in Latin American Elders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors examined the contribution of life-course exposures to gender differences in mobility in later life. METHOD: Data originate from a survey of persons aged 60 and older living in six Latin American and Caribbean cities (n = 10,661). Lower extremity limitations (LEL) were defined as the presence of three or more reported difficulties with five activities: lifting and carrying 10 lb, walking several blocks, climbing a flight of stairs, kneeling/ stooping/crouching, and getting up from a chair. Data were pooled after testing homogeneity of effects across cities. A multivariate model was fitted using logistic regression analysis. Complete data analyses were performed on 8,166 (72%) participants. RESULTS: Prevalence of LEL varies across cities (9.3-23.7% in men, 23.3-42.9% in women). Intervening life-course and health factors explained a small proportion of the gender difference in LEL (odds ratio = 2.39; 95% confidence interval = 2.04-2.79). Childhood hunger was predictive of LEL in women, and a stronger association between depression and LEL was found in men than in women. Little education and insufficient income were associated with LEL for both men and women. DISCUSSION: Life-course exposures predict mobility, but further research is needed to identify intervening factors relating gender to mobility in old age.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".