Normative Values of Cognitive and Physical Function in Older Adults: Findings from The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To provide normative values of tests of cognitive and physical function based on a large sample representative of the population of Ireland aged 50 and older. DESIGN: Data were used from the first wave of The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA), a prospective cohort study that includes a comprehensive health assessment. SETTING: Health assessment was undertaken at one of two dedicated health assessment centers or in the study participant's home if travel was not practicable. PARTICIPANTS: Five thousand eight hundred ninety-seven members of a nationally representative sample of the community-living population of Ireland aged 50 and older. Those with severe cognitive impairment, dementia, or Parkinson's disease were excluded. MEASUREMENTS: Measurements included height and weight, normal walking speed, Timed Up-and-Go, handgrip strength, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Color Trails Test, and bone mineral density. Normative values were estimated using generalized additive models for location shape and scale (GAMLSS) and are presented as percentiles, means, and standard deviations. RESULTS: Generalized additive models for location shape and scale fit the observed data well for each measure, leading to reliable estimates of normative values. Performance on all tasks decreased with age. Educational attainment was a strong determinant of performance on all cognitive tests. Tests of walking speed were dependent on height. Distribution of body mass index did not change with age, owing to simultaneous declines in weight and height. CONCLUSION: Normative values were found for tests of many aspects of cognitive and physical function based on a representative sample of the general older Irish population.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".