Gait speed as predictor of transition into cognitive impairment: Findings from three longitudinal studies on aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Very few studies looking at slow gait speed as early marker of cognitive decline investigated the competing risk of death. The current study examines associations between slow gait speed and transitions between cognitive states and death in later life. METHODS: We performed a coordinated analysis of three longitudinal studies with 9 to 25 years of follow-up. Data were used from older adults participating in H70 (Sweden; n = 441; aged ≥70 years), InCHIANTI (Italy; n = 955; aged ≥65 years), and LASA (the Netherlands; n = 2824; aged ≥55 years). Cognitive states were distinguished using the Mini-Mental State Examination. Slow gait speed was defined as the lowest sex-specific quintile at baseline. Multistate models were performed, adjusted for age, sex and education. RESULTS: Most effect estimates pointed in the same direction, with slow gait speed predicting forward transitions. In two cohort studies, slow gait speed predicted transitioning from mild to severe cognitive impairment (InCHIANTI: HR = 2.08, 95%CI = 1.40-3.07; LASA: HR = 1.33, 95%CI = 1.01-1.75) and transitioning from a cognitively healthy state to death (H70: HR = 3.30, 95%CI = 1.74-6.28; LASA: HR = 1.70, 95%CI = 1.30-2.21). CONCLUSIONS: Screening for slow gait speed may be useful for identifying older adults at risk of adverse outcomes such as cognitive decline and death. However, once in the stage of more advanced cognitive impairment, slow gait speed does not seem to predict transitioning to death anymore.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".