MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213303908 · doi:10.1093/geront/gnv281.05

IDENTIFICATION OF RISK FACTORS FOR MORTALITY AND LOW QUALITY OF LIFE SURVIVAL IN FRAIL OLDER WOMEN

2015· article· en· W4213303908 on OpenAlexaff
Manuel Montero‐Odasso, Anam Islam, Iván Antón‐Rodrigo, Susan Hunter, Karen Gopaul, Mark Speechley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Gerontologist · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityParkwood Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentification (biology)GerontologyQuality of life (healthcare)MedicineBiologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

for model confirmation.Frailty and cognitive impairment were measured using a deficit accumulation approach.Cross-lagged path analysis within a structural equation modelling (SEM) framework was used to examine the bi-directional relationship between the two measures.Results: Each additional frailty deficit at Time1 was associated with a 0.02 increase in cognitive deficits at Time 2, p<.001, controlling for age, gender, social vulnerability, education and initial frailty and cognitive impairment.Likewise, each additional cognitive deficit at Time 1 was associated with a 0.32 increase in frailty deficits at Time 2, p<.01.Discussion: This reciprocal relationship could lead to downward spirals in health with increasing frailty leading to more cognitive impairment and vice versa.Whether interventions targeting either frailty or cognitive impairment could help prevent declines in the other remains a question for further research.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe GerontologistSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207