Failure to complete performance-based measures is associated with poor health status and an increased risk of death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sir—Mobility impairment is common in elderly people, often leads to adverse outcomes [1–4] and is intertwined with frailty [5, 6]. Three types of standardised mobility assessments [self-reported, gait laboratory and performance-based measures (PBMs)] are used, and each has its own advantages and disadvantages, including variable feasibility. PBMs attempt to optimise the practicality of clinical and self reported assessments, and the precision of the gait laboratory [7]. The Timed Up and Go (TUG) [8] and the Functional Reach (FR) [9] are used widely, [10, 11] but often cannot be used for a large proportion on whom the tests are attempted [12]. Such difficulty in undertaking the tests yields missing data, most frequently in those who are ill [13], or frail [14]. We therefore studied infeasibility in PBMs and whether missing data were informative. We compared the characteristics of people from the clinical examination in the Canadian Study of Health and Aging-2 (CSHA-2) who were able to perform both the FR and TUG, with those who could not, and then tested the predictive validity of missing data for both these tests.
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 | 0.001 | 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".