FOUR-YEAR TRAJECTORIES OF PHYSICAL HEALTH IN CANADIAN SENIORS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seniors are living longer and many experience what is called Healthy Aging, an aging process without significant impairment. However, the vast majority of older adults will have some degree of limitations. In order to develop successful healthcare strategiesit’s necessary to understand the dynamics of aging. The global aim of this study was to describe trajectories of physical health over a 4-year period among a Canadian senior population and to identify factor’s associated with deteriorating health. Between 2004 and 2009, the Quebec Longitudinal Study on Nutrition and Successful Aging (NuAge) recruited 1793 seniors. Participants were assessed annually, for up to 4 years, including socio-demographic characteristics, comorbidities, medication, physical function, cognition, health behaviors, social environment, and health status. Physical health was assessed using the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS). Group-based trajectory modelling (GBTM) was used to create group individuals with similar physical health trajectories. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of physical health deterioration among those with excellent or very good physical health. From the sample of 1793 seniors (853 men, 940 women; mean age 74 ± 4 years), 6 unique trajectories of physical health were identified. Three groups started at values well below Canadian norms but this poor physical health remained stable over time. Three groups (n=869) had values above the norm and 1 showed persistent excellent health (PCS intercept = 55); 2 groups started with very good physical health (PCS intercept = 52) but 1 showed a drastic deterioration. Among those with starting out with excellent or very good health, three factors predicted membership in the deteriorating group: (i) heavier body weight (OR = 1.31 per 30 kg. difference; 95%CI 1.12–1.78);(ii) more depressive symptoms (OR per symptom = 1.08; 95%CI 1.03–1.15); whereas (iii) higher physical activity (PA) protected against deterioration (OR = 0.69 per 30% more PA; 95%CI: 0.48–0.97). In conclusion, inactive, seniors with excess weight and depressive symptoms do not age well. These should be targets of preventive health strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".