MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329548391 · doi:10.1080/096382800296665

A hierarchical model of domains of disablement in the elderly: a longitudinal approach

2000· article· en· W2329548391 on OpenAlexaff
Pascale Barberger‐Gateau, Constant Rainville, Luc Letenneur, Jean‐François Dartigues

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivities of daily livingBaseline (sea)Scale (ratio)GerontologyMultilevel modelPsychologyMedicineComputer scienceGeographyPsychiatryMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: the aims of this paper are to verify that a hierarchical relationship exists between the concepts of Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) and mobility and to use this hierarchical model to describe the evolution of disability. METHODS: 3751 elderly community dwellers were followed-up 3 and 5 years after baseline interview. A hierarchic disability scale was computed by summing up the number of domains (ADL, IADL, mobility) in which a subject was dependent. Coefficients of scalability and reproducibility of the scale were computed. The hierarchic scale was used to describe transitions between states at each follow-up. RESULTS: the hierarchical model fitted 99.3% of the subjects at baseline. At each follow-up most transitions were towards contiguous grades of disability in survivors, whatever their age. There was a significant trend towards increasing disability. Death rates were higher in subjects aged 75 and over, whatever their disability level. The patterns of evolution differed according to gender. CONCLUSIONS: the cumulative disability scale can be used to describe the evolution of disability with time in elderly community dwellers.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations185
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207