Multimorbidity predicts functional decline in community-dwelling older adults: Prospective cohort study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if multimorbidity is associated with functional status, and to assess if multimorbidity predicts declining functional status over a 5-year time frame, after accounting for baseline functional status and other potential confounding factors. DESIGN: Analysis of an existing population-based cohort study. SETTING: Manitoba. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling adults aged 65 and older. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Age, sex, education, and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) scores were recorded for each patient. Multimorbidity was measured using a simple tally of self-reported diseases. Function was measured using the Older Americans Resources and Services scale in 1991 to 1992 and again 5 years later. Good or excellent level of function was compared with level of disability (mild or moderate or higher). Cross-sectional and prospective analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In a cross-sectional analysis, multimorbidity predicted disability. The unadjusted odds ratio (OR) (95% CI) for disability was 1.45 (1.39 to 1.52) for each additional chronic illness. In models adjusting for age, sex, education, and MMSE and CES-D scores, the adjusted OR (95% CI) was 1.35 (1.29 to 1.42) for each additional chronic illness. Multimorbidity also predicted disability 5 years later. The unadjusted OR (95% CI) was 1.31 (1.24 to 1.38). In models adjusting for age, sex, education, and MMSE and CES-D scores in addition to baseline functional status, the adjusted OR (95% CI) was 1.15 (1.09 to 1.24). CONCLUSION: Multimorbidity predicts disability in cross-sectional and prospective analyses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".