MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087038439 · doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.05.001

Activity Limitation Stages Empirically Derived for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental ADL in the U.S. Adult Community‐Dwelling Medicare Population

2014· article· en· W2087038439 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret G. Stineman, Joel E. Streim, Qiang Pan, Jibby E. Kurichi, Sophia Miryam Schüssler‐Fiorenza Rose, Dawei Xie

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsActivities of daily livingGerontologyMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Stages quantify severity like conventional measures but further specify the activities that people are still able to perform without difficulty. OBJECTIVE: To develop Activity Limitation Stages for defining and monitoring groups of adult community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: There were 14,670 respondents to the 2006 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. METHODS: Stages were empirically derived for the Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADLs) by profiling the distribution of performance difficulties as reported by beneficiaries or their proxies. Stage prevalence estimates were determined, and associations with demographic and health variables were examined for all community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: ADL and IADL stage prevalence. RESULTS: Stages (0-IV) define 5 groups across the separate ADL and IADL domains according to hierarchically organized profiles of retained abilities and difficulties. For example, at ADL-I, people are guaranteed to be able to eat, toilet, dress, and bathe/shower without difficulty, whereas they experience limitations getting in and out of bed or chairs and/or difficulties walking. In 2006, an estimated 6.0, 2.9, 2.2, and 0.5 million beneficiaries had mild (ADL-I), moderate (ADL-II), severe (ADL-III), and complete (ADL-IV) difficulties, respectively, with estimates for IADL stages even higher. ADL and IADL stages showed expected associations with age and health-related concepts, supporting construct validity. Stages showed the strongest associations with conditions that impair cognition. CONCLUSIONS: Stages as aggregate measures reveal the ADLs and IADLs that people are still able to do without difficulty, along with those activities in which they report having difficulty, consequently emphasizing how groups of people with difficulties can still participate in their own lives. Over the coming decades, stages applied to populations served by vertically integrated clinical practices could facilitate large-scale planning, with the goal of maximizing personal autonomy among groups of community-dwelling people with disabilities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePM&RSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207