The importance of physical function as a clinical outcome: Assessment and enhancement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The burgeoning population of older adults is intrinsically prone to cardiovascular disease (CVD) in a context of multimorbidity and geriatric syndromes. Risks include high susceptibility to functional decline, with many older adults tipping towards patterns of sedentary behavior and to downstream effects of frailty, falls, disability, poor quality of life, as well as increased morbidity and mortality even if the incident CVD was treated perfectly. While physical activity has been shown to moderate these patterns both as primary or secondary preventive medical care, the majority of older adults fail to meet physical activity recommendations. Clinicians of all specialities, including CVD medicine, can benefit from greater proficiency in functional assessments for their older adults, as well as from insights how to initiate effective functional enhancing approaches even in older adults who may be frail, deconditioned, and medically complex. Pertinent functional assessments include traditional cardiovascular metrics of cardiorespiratory fitness, as well as strength and balance. This review summarizes the components of a wide-ranging functional assessment that can be used to enhance care for older adults with CVD, as well as interventions to improve physical function.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".