Measurement of the Influence of the Physical Environment on Adverse Health Outcomes: Technical Report From the Canadian Study of Health and Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A paucity of information exists to characterize the relationship between the health status of elderly people and their physical environment. The Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA) is a multicenter study of the distribution of dementia among community-dwelling and institutionalized Canadians aged 65 years and older. The study also provides the opportunity to examine issues such as the physical environment which may be related to the health of elderly people. Six items were used to assess the cleanliness, neatness, and maintenance of the inside and outside of the homes of 8,134 community-dwelling individuals. Data were also obtained to evaluate cognition, physical health, and functional capacity. Five years after the original survey, information pertaining to subsequent institutionalization and/or mortality was obtained. A significant relationship was found between classification of physical environment and the outcomes of institutionalization and mortality. The likelihood of both adverse outcomes was notably higher for individuals living in a "less than ideally maintained environment" compared to an "ideally maintained environment." Limitations of the six items used to assess the physical environment and ways in which to improve the sensitivity of the items, consequently avoiding measurement bias, are discussed.
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 | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".