Prevalence of healthy aging among community dwelling adults age 70 and older from five European countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare the prevalence of healthy aging among adults age 70 and older from 5 European countries recruited for the DO-HEALTH clinical trial. Participants were selected for absence of prior major health events. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of DO-HEALTH baseline data. All 2,157 participants (mean age 74.9, SD 4.4; 61.7% women) were included and 2,123 had data for all domains of the healthy aging status (HA) definition. HA was assessed based on the Nurses` Health Study (NHS) definition requiring four domains: no major chronic diseases, no disabilities, no cognitive impairment (Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA ≥25), no mental health limitation (GDS-5 <2, and no diagnosis of depression). Association between HA and age, BMI, gender, and physical function (sit-to-stand, gait speed, grip strength) was assessed by multivariate logistic regression analyses adjusting for center. RESULTS: Overall, 41.8% of DO-HEALTH participants were healthy agers with significant variability by country: Austria (Innsbruck) 58.3%, Switzerland (Zurich, Basel, Geneva) 51.2%, Germany (Berlin) 37.6%, France (Toulouse) 36.7% and Portugal (Coimbra) 8.8% (p <0.0001). Differences in prevalence by country persisted after adjustment for age. In the multivariate model, younger age (OR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.98), female gender (OR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.81), lower BMI (OR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.96), faster gait speed (OR = 4.70, 95% CI 2.68 to 8.25) and faster performance in sit-to-stand test (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.93) were independently and significantly associated with HA. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the same inclusion and exclusion criteria preselecting relatively healthy adults age 70 years and older, HA prevalence in DO-HEALTH varied significantly between countries and was highest in participants from Austria and Switzerland, lowest in participants from Portugal. Independent of country, younger age, female gender, lower BMI and better physical function were associated with HA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DO-HEALTH was registered under the protocol NCT01745263 at the International Trials Registry ( clinicaltrials.gov ), and under the protocol number 2012-001249-41 at the Registration at the European Community Clinical Trial System (EudraCT).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".