Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dementia has been recognized as the strongest determinant for developing functional disability. However, dementia patients typically present with concomitant illness, thereby making difficult a determination of the fraction of disability due to dementia. The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of functional disability among demented and nondemented people and to estimate the excess disability in demented subjects net of conditions independently associated with disability in older people, using data on nearly 2,900 subjects from the clinical examination of the 1991 Canadian Study of Health and Aging. Unadjusted specific disability prevalence (in bathing, dressing, grooming, toileting and stool and urinary incontinence) is considerably greater among demented subjects than among cognitively normal or cognitively impaired but not demented subjects. After adjustments, specific disability in demented subjects is somewhat reduced in comparison to nondemented and cognitively impaired but not demented subjects. Thus, even when one considers the influence of a history of physical illnesses that typically result in disability, the link between disability and dementia is only marginally attenuated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".