Interaction Between Visual Acuity and Peripheral Vascular Disease with Balance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether visual acuity is related to balance in older adults with peripheral vascular disease (PVD) or diabetes mellitus. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling adults aged 45 to 85 from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (N=30,097). MEASUREMENTS: Visual acuity was measured wearing habitual distance correction using the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart at a 2-m distance. Poor balance was defined as being unable to stand on 1 leg for at least 60 seconds. PVD and diabetes mellitus were assessed according to self-report of a physician diagnosis. Multiple logistic regression was used. RESULTS: People who reported PVD (n=1,295) were more likely to have worse balance than those who did not (odds ratio (OR)=1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.29-1.77). In those who did not report PVD (n=26,211), a 1-line worse score on the visual acuity test was associated with 23% higher odds of being unable to stand for at least 60 seconds after adjusting for age, sex, education, province, body mass index, and diabetes mellitus (OR=1.23, 95% CI=1.20-1.26). In those who reported PVD, the odds of being unable to stand was almost double (OR=1.41, 95% CI=1.22-1.62). The interaction between visual acuity and PVD was statistically significant (P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: Visual acuity and PVD interact in their relationship with balance. People with poor vision and PVD may be at an especially high risk of mobility difficulties.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".