Does monitoring change in function in community-dwelling older adults alter outcome? A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether information about an older person's physical functioning provided to the patient and his or her physician delays functional decline and improves health outcomes. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial was undertaken; the assessors were not blinded to the group allocation. SETTING: The study took place in a clinic within a hospital setting. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and sixty-five community-dwelling people over 65 years were recruited from family practice units. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention group received assessments of physical function with feedback to the participant and the participant's family physician or functional assessments alone over 18 months. Self-report measures for health status using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) and preclinical disability were used together with performance measures which included the lower extremity performance test and muscle strength. RESULTS: There were small, statistically significant group/time interactions which included disability scores, F=4.78, P < or =0.05), and the vitality subscale of the SF-36, F=7.47, P < or =0.01). CONCLUSION: Providing information about the results of detailed assessment of physical functioning to older adults and their physicians did not show significant differences in function scores between the intervention and control groups.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".