The Incidence of Visual Impairment, its Risk Factors, and its Mobility Consequences: The Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Canada has yet to conduct high quality, prospective, population-based surveys that measure incident visual impairment, its risk factors, and adverse consequences, creating an unmet need to obtain more rigorous analysis in this regard QUESTIONS: What is the 3-year incidence of visual impairment in each province? What are the risk factors for the 3-year incidence of visual impairment? Do they include geographic, sociodemographic, lifestyle, social, health and healthcare factors? Does vision loss increase the odds of balance problems after three years? METHODS: Baseline and 3-year follow-up data were used from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging. The Comprehensive Cohort included 30,097 adults ages 45-85 years old recruited from 11 sites across 7 provinces. Presenting binocular visual acuity was measured using the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart. Incidence of VI was defined as the development at follow-up of visual acuity worse than 20/40 in those with acuity better than or equal to 20/40 at baseline. Balance was measured using the one-leg balance test. Those who could not stand on one leg for at least 60 seconds were classified as having failed the test. Participants were asked about the self-report of a diagnosis of cataract, macular degeneration, or glaucoma. RESULTS: 3.88% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 3.61, 4.17) of Canadian adults developed VI over a 3-year period. There was a high degree of variability in the incidence between Canadian provinces with a low of 1.42% in Manitoba and a high of 7.33% in Nova Scotia. Uncorrected refractive error was the leading cause of incident VI. Risk factors for incident VI included older age (odds ratio (OR)=1.07, 95% CI 1.06, 1.07), Black race (OR=2.64, 95% CI 1.36, 5.14), lower household income (OR=1.73 for those making less than $20,000 per year, 95% CI 1.24, 2.40), current smoking (OR=1.78, 95% CI 1.37, 2.32), and province. Of the 12,158 people who could stand for 60 seconds on one leg at baseline, 18% were unable to do the same at follow-up 3 years later. After adjustment for demographic and health variables, those with worse visual acuity (per 1 line) were more likely to fail the balance test at follow-up (OR=1.15, 95% CI 1.10, 1.20). Those with a report of a former (OR=1.59, 95% CI 1.17, 2.16) or current cataract (OR=1.31, 95% CI 1.01, 1.68) were more likely to fail the test at follow-up. CONCLUSION: The incidence of visual impairment is common in older Canadian adults, varies markedly between provinces, and is largely due to treatable causes. Risk factors for VI suggest sub-groups that may benefit from interventions to improve access to eye care. These data provide longitudinal evidence that vision loss increases the odds of balance problems over a 3-year period. Efforts to prevent avoidable vision loss are needed as are efforts to improve the balance of visually impaired people.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".