Validity of the Katz Index to assess activities of daily living by informants in neuropathological studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the evidences of construct validity of the Katz Index for the retrospective assessment of activities of daily living (ADL) by informants, to assist neuropathological studies in the elderly. METHOD: A cross-sectional study analyzed the functional ability of ADL measure by the Katz Index, of 650 cases randomly selected from the Brazilian Brain Bank of the Ageing Brain Study Group (BBBABSG) database. Sample was divided in two subsamples for the analysis (N=325, each) and then stratified according to cognitive decline assessed by the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR). Factor analyses with calculations of internal consistency and invariance were performed. RESULTS: Factor analysis evidenced a unidimensional instrument with optimal internal consistency, in all subgroups. Goodness of fit indices were obtained after two treatments of covariance, indicating adequacy of the scale for assessing ADL by informants. The scale is invariant to cognitive decline meaning that it can be used for subjects with or without cognitive impairment. CONCLUSION: Katz Index is valid for the retrospective assessment of basic ADL by informants, with optimal reliability.
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 | 0.023 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".