MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2538639869 · doi:10.1177/0898264316673714

Quality of Life Trajectories Predict Mortality in Older Men: The Manitoba Follow-Up Study

2016· article· en· W2538639869 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Philip D. St. John, Depeng Jiang, Robert B. Tate

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare InnovationUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Geriatrics SocietyUniversity of ManitobaResearch Manitoba
KeywordsMental healthQuality of life (healthcare)CohortGerontologyMedicineCohort studyDemographyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe quality of life trajectories of older men over a 10-year time frame in mental and physical health domains, and to determine if these trajectories predict death over a subsequent 9-year period. METHOD: A cohort study of Royal Canadian Air Force aircrew veterans. We used Short Form-36 (SF-36) measures of mental and physical functioning collected prospectively at six time points between 1996 to 2006 (734 men with a mean age of 85.5 [ SD 3.0] years in 2006) to determine trajectories. Continued contact with the cohort from 2006 to 2015 determined subsequent mortality. RESULTS: Men were more likely to maintain high levels of mental functioning than physical functioning. Thirty-seven percent of participants maintained a high level of both mental and physical functioning. Declining function in either mental or physical function was associated with lower survival. CONCLUSION: Men who maintain physical and mental functioning have a lower mortality rate.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aging and HealthSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207