Life‐Space Mobility and Mortality in Older Men: A Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationship between life-space (the extent, frequency, and independence of an individual's movement) and mortality in older men. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Six U.S. clinical sites. PARTICIPANTS: Men aged 71 to 98 followed from 2007 to 2011 (N = 3,892). MEASUREMENTS: Life-space during the past month was assessed as 0 (daily restriction to one's bedroom) to 120 (daily trips outside one's town without assistance) and categorized into 20-point intervals. The primary outcome was noncancer mortality, and secondary outcomes were all-cause, cardiovascular, cancer, and noncardiovascular noncancer mortality. RESULTS: Over 2.7 years (2007-2011), 373 (9.6%) men died, 230 from noncancer causes. Unadjusted risk of noncancer mortality was 41.2% in men with the lowest level of life-space (0-20 points, n = 34) and 2.4% in men with the highest level of life-space (101-120 points, n = 868), a 17 times difference. In multivariable-adjusted models, there was a strong linear trend between decreasing life-space and increasing risk of noncancer mortality (P = .005). Risk of noncancer mortality was 3.8 times higher (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.3,11.5) in men with the lowest life-space than in those with the highest life-space. Risk of noncancer mortality was 1.3 times higher (95% CI=1.1-1.5) for each standard-deviation (24 point) decrease in life-space. Risk of noncancer mortality was 1.5 times higher (95% CI=1.0-2.3) in men who did not travel beyond their neighborhood without assistance (n = 471). Results were similar for all-cause mortality and did not change after control for chronic disease burden. CONCLUSION: Life-space predicted a variety of mortality endpoints in older men; scores of 40 or less were associated with mortality independent of other risk factors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".