Prevalence of Visual Impairment and Utilization of Rehabilitation Services in the Visually Impaired Elderly Population of Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data on the prevalence of reported visual impairment and on the utilization of rehabilitation services were collected on a sample consisting of 1777 community-residing people aged at least 65 years. A visual disability was considered to be present if the answer to at least one of the following two questions was positive: Do you have trouble reading ordinary newsprint with glasses (if normally worn)? Do you have trouble clearly seeing the face of someone 12 feet away with glasses (if normally worn)? Prevalence of a reported near disability was 7.6%, prevalence of a reported distance disability was 4.4%, and 3.5% of subjects reported both types of disability. In a subsample of the surveyed population, the positive predictive value was 21% and the negative predictive value was 100%, using moderate or worse visual impairment as the gold standard. Among those answering yes to both questions, 11.4% received services from a rehabilitation center and 10.0% from a nonprofit agency. The utilization rates (adjusted to apply only to those whose visual impairment was confirmed by visual examination) reached 20% for rehabilitation centers and 17.5% for nonprofit agencies. Low utilization of rehabilitation services raises questions concerning the role of general eye care practitioners, community-based health centers, and rehabilitation centers in the rehabilitative process of the visually impaired elderly.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".