Preclinical mobility limitation outcomes in rehabilitation interventions for middle-aged and older adults population: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives This scoping review aims to understand the extent of evidence regarding preclinical mobility limitation (PCML) intervention studies that have been implemented or planned in middle-aged and older adult populations. Introduction Individuals with PCML are at a high risk of future functional loss and progression to disability. An overview of studies undertaken on this emerging topic is now due. Inclusion criteria Rehabilitation intervention studies that measured PCML outcomes or assessed individuals at the PCML stage will be included. Studies will be considered if the participants are middle-aged (45-64yrs) or older adults (≥ 65yrs) in any setting, including community-dwelling, hospital discharges, or institutional settings. Methods Seven databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane CENTRAL) were searched to locate relevant published and unpublished intervention studies (English evidence from inception onwards). The search strategy will be generated using the PCC framework (population, concept, and context) and refined after consulting with a McMaster research librarian. In addition, a manual search from the reference list of retrieved papers and review articles will also be performed. Two reviewers will use predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria to independently review titles, abstracts, and full texts of potential articles. Any disagreements on study selection will be resolved by discussion or consensus involving a third reviewer. Data will be collected and reported using a predefined data extraction chart and described using qualitative content analysis.
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 | 0.095 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.011 |
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".