Longitudinal associations between self-reported vision impairment and all-cause mortality: a nationally representative cohort study among older Chinese adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of pre-existing and new self-reported vision impairment (VI), and its correction, on all-cause mortality among Chinese adults aged 45 years and older. METHODS: We used four waves of data from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study. Our analytical cohort consists of 15 808 participants aged 45 years and older with an average follow-up of 6.4 years. Exposures included pre-existing self-reported VI and vision correction (time-independent exposures), new self-reported VI and vision correction (time-dependent exposures). Outcomes were measured as the risk of all-cause mortality and the risk stratification for pre-specified factors. RESULTS: Compared with participants with normal vision, all-cause mortality was higher among those with pre-existing self-reported VI (crude HR (cHR)=1.29, 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.44; adjusted HR (aHR)=1.22, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.37) and new self-reported VI (cHR=1.42, 95% CI: 1.28 to 1.58; aHR=1.36, 95% CI: 1.21 to 1.51). Mortality risk was lower among those with high school or higher education. Participants who were wearing eyeglasses/contact lenses or had cataract surgery at baseline did not have significantly higher all-cause mortality (eyeglasses: aHR=0.82, 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.02; cataract surgery: aHR=1.12, 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.69) compared with participants with normal vision. The same was true among participants with new correction of self-reported VI (glasses: aHR=1.01, 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.24; cataract surgery: aHR=0.95, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.31). CONCLUSIONS: Both pre-existing and new self-reported VI increase all-cause mortality among Chinese adults aged 45 years and older, though visual correction reduces this risk.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".