MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140907090 · doi:10.1177/0898264310361367

Relative Body Weight and Disability in Older Adults: Results From a National Survey

2010· article· en· W2140907090 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tahany M. Gadalla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderweightOddsOverweightGerontologySocioeconomic statusActivities of daily livingMedicineOdds ratioEnvironmental healthIntervention (counseling)DemographyObesityPopulationLogistic regressionPhysical therapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the sociodemographic, health, and economic determinants of limitations in performing instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) in Canadians 65 years and older with emphasis on the role of relative body weight. Furthermore, the study examined the relationship between these limitations and the whole range of relative body weight while controlling for the above determinants. METHOD: This research used data collected in the Canadian Community Health Survey in 2005 on Canadians 65 years and older (N = 21,255). RESULTS: The odds of experiencing IADL limitations were higher for women, the poor, and those not living with a partner. These odds also increased with advancing age and weaker physical health. Controlling for socioeconomic and health characteristics, the odds of experiencing such limitations were significantly elevated in underweight and obese individuals but not in overweight individuals. DISCUSSION: Prevention and intervention strategies targeting underweight and obese individuals should be a policy priority.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations12
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aging and HealthSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207