MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418114549 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0156828

Gender Roles and Physical Function in Older Adults: Cross-Sectional Analysis of the International Mobility in Aging Study (IMIAS)

2016· article· en· W2418114549 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tamer Ahmed, Afshin Vafaei, Mohammad Auais, Jack M. Guralnik, Marı́a Victoria Zunzunegui

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsContext (archaeology)DemographyCross-sectional studyMasculinityConfidence intervalPoisson regressionGerontologyMarital statusPsychologyMedicineGeographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationships between physical function and gender-stereotyped traits and whether these relationships are modified by sex or social context. METHODS: A total of 1995 community-dwelling older adults from the International Mobility in Aging Study (IMIAS) aged 65 to 74 years were recruited in Natal (Brazil), Manizales (Colombia), Tirana (Albania), Kingston (Ontario, Canada), and Saint-Hyacinthe (Quebec, Canada). We performed a cross-sectional analysis. Study outcomes were mobility disability, defined as having difficulty in walking 400 meters without assistance or climbing a flight of stairs without resting, and low physical performance, defined as a score < 8 on the Short Physical Performance Battery. The 12-item Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) was used to classify participants into four gender roles (Masculine, Feminine, Androgynous, and Undifferentiated) using site-specific medians of femininity and masculinity as cut-off points. Poisson regression models were used to estimate prevalence rate ratios (PRR) of mobility disability and poor physical performance according to gender roles. RESULTS: In models adjusted for sex, marital status, education, income, and research site, when comparing to the androgynous role, we found higher prevalence of mobility disability and poor physical performance among participants endorsing the feminine role (PRR = 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.39 and PRR = 1.37, CI 1.01-1.88, respectively) or the undifferentiated role (PRR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.07-1.42 and PRR = 1.58, CI 1.18-2.12, respectively). Participants classified as masculine did not differ from androgynous participants in prevalence rates of mobility disability or low physical performance. None of the multiplicative interactions by sex and research site were significant. CONCLUSION: Feminine and undifferentiated gender roles are independent risk factors for mobility disability and low physical performance in older adults. Longitudinal research is needed to assess the mediation pathways through which gender-stereotyped traits influence functional limitations and to investigate the longitudinal nature of these relationships.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations61
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207