Acceptance of Disability and the Risk of Frailty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: THE OBJECTIVES ARE TO DETERMINE IF: 1) accepting disability as a part of aging is associated with frailty; and 2) accepting disability is associated with becoming frail over a five-year period. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of 1,751 community-dwelling adults aged 65+. Participants were asked to rate their agreement with the statement: "When you reach my age, you have to accept a fair degree of discomfort and physical disability" on a five-point scale. Frailty was categorized as not frail or frail. The sample was re-interviewed five years later. RESULTS: The mean age was 75.5 years, 62.3% were women, and the mean education was 10.2 years. Accepting disability as a part of aging was strongly associated with frailty at time 1; the unadjusted Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was 1.47 (1.25, 1.72) and this association persisted after adjusting for confounding factors. Accepting disability was also associated with becoming frail; the unadjusted OR and 95% CI was 1.51 (1.20, 1.90), and this association also persisted after adjusting for potential confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: Accepting disability as a part of aging is associated with being frail and becoming frail.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".