MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3086701089 · doi:10.1101/2020.09.14.20193961

Early-life socioeconomic position and the accumulation of health-related deficits by midlife in the 1958 British birth cohort study

2020· preprint· en· W3086701089 on OpenAlexaff
Nina Rogers, Joanna M. Blodgett, Samuel D. Searle, Rachel Cooper, Daniel Davis, Snehal M. Pinto Pereira

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusMedicineHazard ratioCohortDemographyLife course approachGerontologyCohort studyPopulationConfidence intervalPsychologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicineDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Reducing population levels of frailty is an important goal and preventing its development in mid-adulthood could be pivotal. Childhood socioeconomic position (SEP) is associated with a myriad of adult health outcomes but evidence is limited on associations with frailty. Using 1958 British birth cohort data (N=8711), we aimed to: (i) establish the utility of measuring frailty in mid-life, by examining associations between a 34-item frailty index at 50y (FI 50y ) and mortality over an eight-year follow-up period and (ii) examine associations between early-life SEP and FI 50y and investigate whether these associations were explained by adult SEP. Hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality increased with increasing levels of frailty, e.g., HR sex-adjusted was 4.07(95% CI:2.64,6.25) for highest vs. lowest fifth of FI 50y . Lower early-life SEP was associated with higher FI 50y : per unit decrease in early-life SEP (on a 4-point scale), FI 50y increased by 12.7%(10.85%,14.6%) in a model adjusted for early-life covariates. After additional adjustment for adult occupational class and education, the association attenuated to 5.71%(3.71%,7.70%). Findings suggest that early-life SEP is associated with frailty and that adult SEP only partially explains this association. Results highlight the importance of improving socioeconomic circumstances across the life course to reduce inequalities in frailty from mid-adulthood.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→