Frequency of Going Outdoors as a Good Predictors for Incident Disability of Physical Function as well as Disability Recovery in Community-Dwelling Older Adults in Rural Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinico-epidemiologic relevance of the reduction in the frequency of going outdoors in older adults has not been well characterized. This study examined whether the frequency of going outdoors has predictive values for incident physical disability and recovery among community-dwelling elderly. METHODS: One thousand, two hundred and sixty-seven persons aged 65+ years who lived in a rural community in Niigata, Japan, and participated in the baseline survey were assessed again 2 years later in terms of mobility, and instrumental and basic activities of daily living (IADL and BADL). We compared the incident disability and recovery at follow-up among three subgroups classified by the baseline frequency of going outdoors: once a day or more often, once per 2-3 days, and once a week or less often. Multivariate analyses tested associations between the frequency of going outdoors and functional transition, independent of potential confounders. RESULTS: A lower frequency of going outdoors at baseline was associated with a greater incident disability, and a lower recovery at the two-year follow-up. Even after adjustment, the effects of going outdoors remained significant. Adjusted risks of incident mobility and IADL disabilities were significantly higher (odds ratio[OR]=4.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.77-9.14 and OR=2.65, 95% CI: 1.06-6.58), respectively, and recovery from mobility disability was significantly lower (OR=0.29, 95% CI: 0.08-0.99) for "once a week or less often" subgroup compared with "once a day or more often" subgroup. CONCLUSION: The frequency of going outdoors is a good predictor for incident physical disability and recovery among community-living elderly. Public health nurses and clinicians should pay more attention how often their senior clients usually go outdoors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".