MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202790992 · doi:10.20381/ruor-26967

The Incidence of Visual Impairment, its Risk Factors, and its Mobility Consequences: The Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging

2021· dissertation· en· W3202790992 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Zaina Kahiel

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2021
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of Canada
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)Visual impairmentLongitudinal studyGerontologyPsychologyMedicineMathematicsPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)Same topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207