Effect of anemia and comorbidity on functional status and mortality in old age: results from the Leiden 85-plus Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited insight into the attributable effect of anemia and comorbidity on functional status and mortality in old age. METHODS: The Leiden 85-plus Study is a population-based prospective follow-up study of 562 people aged 85 years. Anemia was defined according to World Health Organization criteria. We measured 3 parameters of functional status at baseline and annually thereafter for 5 years: disability in basic and instrumental activities of daily living, cognitive function and the presence of depressive symptoms. We obtained mortality data from the municipal registry. RESULTS: The prevalence of anemia at baseline was 26.7% (150/562). Participants who had anemia at baseline had more disability in activities of daily living, worse cognitive function and more depressive symptoms than participants without anemia at baseline (p <or= 0.01). These differences disappeared after adjustment for comorbidity. After adjustment for comorbidity in the prospective analyses, anemia at baseline was associated with an additional increase in disability in instrumental activities of daily living during follow-up; incident anemia during follow-up (n = 99) was associated with an additional increase in disability in basic activities of daily living. Prevalent and incident anemia were both associated with an increased risk of death, even after we adjusted for sex, education level, income, residence in a long-term care facility, C-reactive protein level, creatinine clearance and the presence of disease (hazard ratio for prevalent anemia 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13 to 1.76; hazard ratio for incident anemia 2.08, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.70). INTERPRETATION: Anemia in very elderly people appears to be associated with an increased risk of death, independent of comorbidity. However, the associated functional decline appears to be attributed mainly to comorbidity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".