Life satisfaction and frailty in community-based older adults: cross-sectional and prospective analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frailty may be associated with reduced life satisfaction (LS). The objectives of this paper are to determine if (1) frailty is associated with LS in community-dwelling older adults in cross-sectional analyses; (2) frailty predicts LS five years later; and (3) specific domains of LS are preferentially associated with frailty. METHODS: This paper presents analysis of an existing population-based cohort study of 1,751 persons aged 65+ who were assessed in 1991, with follow-up five years later. LS was measured using the terrible-delightful scale, which measures overall LS and LS in specific domains. Frailty was measured using the Brief Frailty Instrument. Analyses were adjusted for age, gender, education, and marital status. RESULTS: Frailty was associated with overall LS at time 1 and predicted overall LS at time 2. This was seen in unadjusted analyses and after adjusting for confounding factors. Frailty was associated with all domains of LS at time 1, and predicted LS at time 2 in all domains except housing and self-esteem. However, the effect was stronger for LS with health than with other domains for both times 1 and 2. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty is associated with LS, and the effect is strongest for LS with health.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".