Black—White Disparities in Disability Among Older Americans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of adjusting for income and education on disparities in functional limitations and limitations in activities of daily living (ADLs) between Black and White older Americans. METHOD: Data from the 2003 American Community Survey were used to examine the associations of education and income, stratified by race and gender, with functional limitations and ADLs, in a sample of 16,870 non-Hispanic Blacks and 186,086 non-Hispanic Whites aged 55 to 74. Sequential logistic regressions were used to examine the relative contribution of income and education to racial disparities. RESULTS: Ninety percent of the Black-White difference in disability rates for men and 75% of the difference for women aged 55 to 64 were explained by income and education. DISCUSSION: The greatly elevated risk of disability among Blacks aged 55 to 74 is largely explained by differences in socioeconomic status. Reductions in Black-White health disparities require a better understanding of the mechanisms whereby lower income and education are associated with functional outcomes in older persons.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".