Frailty and Autonomy among the Oldest Old: Evidence from the Multicenter Prospective AgeCoDe-AgeQualiDe Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of studies examining the link between perceived autonomy and frailty among the oldest old. Therefore, our objective was to fill this gap. METHODS: Data were used from the multicenter prospective cohort study "Needs, health service use, costs and health-related quality of life in a large sample of oldest-old primary care patients (85+)" (AgeQualiDe; follow-up [FU] wave 9; n = 510 observations in the analytical sample). The average age was 90.3 years (SD: 2.7 years). The Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA) Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) was used to assess frailty. Socioeconomic and health-related covariates were included in our regression model. The autonomy scale developed by Schwarzer was used to assess perceived autonomy in old age. RESULTS: Adjusting for various confounders, multiple linear regressions showed that lower perceived autonomy was associated with increased levels of frailty (total sample: β = -0.13, p < 0.001; women: β = -0.14, p < 0.001; and men: β = -0.12, p < 0.001). Furthermore, lower perceived autonomy was associated with more depressive symptoms, higher cognitive impairment, and being institutionalized (except for men) in the total sample and in both sexes, but it was not significantly associated with age, sex, marital status, educational level, and social support. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate that frailty is associated with lower autonomy among the oldest old. More generally, while health-related factors were consistently associated with autonomy, sociodemographic factors (except for being institutionalized) were not associated with autonomy among the oldest old. We should be aware of the strong association between autonomy and physical as well as mental health in very old age.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".