Gender differences associated with physical functioning in older persons with angina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether older men and women with and without angina experience differences in specific areas of physical functioning. METHOD: A historical population based cohort design was used to examine this question. Data were taken from the Established Populations for the Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly which consists of four large cohorts of samples over 65 years of age living in four communities East Boston, Iowa, New Haven and North Carolina. The Rose Questionnaire was used to identify persons who had angina. Physical functioning was conceptualized under the Nagi framework and considered as either functional limitation/mobility or activities of daily living. Persons were considered disabled if they required assistance with any activity in these categories. Logistic regression was used to examine variables associated with gender differences in physical function. RESULTS: Six hundred and twenty-four person met the criteria for the classification of angina; 249 (39.9%) were men and 375 (60%) were women. In men and women, disability was greater with items associated with functional mobility than for activities of daily living but women were more affected than men. Self-rated health was important in explaining functioning in both areas. CONCLUSION: Older women who experience angina symptoms also have a greater lower extremity disability compared to men with angina. Angina may force older women to curtail more strenuous activities which could lead to further disablement.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".