Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders Study: Recruitment and Baseline Characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recruitment of older adults into long-term clinical trials involving behavioral interventions is a significant challenge. The Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIFE) Study is a Phase 3 multicenter randomized controlled multisite trial, designed to compare the effects of a moderate-intensity physical activity program with a successful aging health education program on the incidence of major mobility disability (the inability to walk 400 m) in sedentary adults aged 70-89 years, who were at high risk for mobility disability (scoring ≤ 9 on the Short Physical Performance Battery) at baseline. METHODS: Recruitment methods, yields, efficiency, and costs are described together with a summary of participant baseline characteristics. Yields were examined across levels of sex, race and ethnicity, and Short Physical Performance Battery, as well as by site. RESULTS: The 21-month recruiting period resulted in 14,812 telephone screens; 1,635 participants were randomized (67.2% women, 21.0% minorities, 44.7% with Short Physical Performance Battery scores ≤ 7). Of the telephone-screened participants, 37.6% were excluded primarily because of regular participation in physical activity, health exclusions, or self-reported mobility disability. Direct mailing was the most productive recruitment strategy (59.5% of randomized participants). Recruitment costs were $840 per randomized participant. Yields differed by sex and Short Physical Performance Battery. We accrued 11% more participant follow-up time than expected during the recruitment period as a result of the accelerated recruitment rate. CONCLUSIONS: The LIFE Study achieved all recruitment benchmarks. Bulk mailing is an efficient method for recruiting high-risk community-dwelling older persons (including minorities), from diverse geographic areas for this long-term behavioral trial.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".