Meaningful Change Estimates for the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI) is a well-validated and frequently used patient-reported outcome for older adults. The aim of this study was to estimate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the LLFDI-Function Component (LLFDI-FC) and its subscales among community-dwelling older adults with mobility limitations. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of the Boston Rehabilitative Impairment Study of the Elderly, a longitudinal cohort study of older adults with mobility limitations residing in the community. The MCID for each LLFDI-FC scale over 1 year of follow-up was estimated using both anchor- and distribution-based methods, including mean change scores on a patient-reported global rating of change in function scale, the standard error of measurement (SEM), and the minimal detectable change with 90% confidence (MDC90). RESULTS: Data from 320 older adults were used in the analysis (mean age 76 years, 69% female, mean of four chronic conditions). Meaningful change estimates for "small change" based on the global rating of change and SEM were 2, 3, 4, and 4 points for the LLFDI-FC overall function scale and basic lower-extremity, advanced lower-extremity, and upper-extremity subscales, respectively. Estimates for "substantial change" based on the global rating of change and minimal detectable change with 90% confidence were 5, 6, 9, and 10 points for the overall function scale and basic lower-extremity, advanced lower-extremity, and upper-extremity subscales, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study provides the first MCID estimates for the LLFDI-FC, a widely used patient-reported measure of function. These values can be used to interpret the outcomes of longitudinal investigations of functional status in similar populations of community-dwelling older adults.
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 | 0.033 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".