Association of anemia with mobility capacity in older adults: a Korean nationwide population-based cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over 10% of adults aged ≥65 years have anemia, as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO). As the timed up and go (TUG) test is one of the most widely used tests of mobility, this study investigated whether anemia was associated with mobility capacity assessed using the TUG test in older adults. METHODS: Subjects belonging to the Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Health Screening Cohort of the National Health Information Database were reviewed. Subjects were included if they had completed the TUG test as part of the National Screening Program for Transitional Ages in Korea. An abnormal TUG test result was defined as a time of ≥10 s and anemia was defined according to the WHO criteria as a hemoglobin (Hb) concentration of < 13.0 g/dL in men and < 12.0 g/dL in women. The association between anemia and TUG test results was evaluated using four multiple logistic regression models with different levels of adjustment. Stratified analysis according to risk factors was performed. RESULTS: The 81,473 subjects included 41,063 (50.4%) women and 40,410 (49.6%) men. Mean TUG time was 8.44 ± 3.08 s, and abnormal TUG test results were observed in 22,138 (27.2%) subjects. Mean Hb concentration was 13.72 ± 1.41 g/dL, and 10,237 (12.6%) subjects had anemia. U-shaped associations between Hb concentration and TUG test results were observed in both sexes. Subjects with anemia were 19% more likely to have abnormal TUG test results, according to the fully adjusted model (adjusted odds ratio: 1.192, 95% confidence interval: 1.137-1.247). Similar results were observed for both sexes. Stratified analysis showed that subjects with anemia were more likely to have abnormal TUG test results regardless of risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with anemia are more likely to have abnormal TUG test results, regardless of risk factors, than individuals without anemia. U-shaped relationships between Hb concentrations and TUG test results were observed in both sexes, although the optimal Hb concentration differed between men and women.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".