MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308426661 · doi:10.1016/s2666-7568(22)00200-8

WHO working definition of vitality capacity for healthy longevity monitoring

2022· review· en· W4308426661 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Healthy Longevity · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersVrije Universiteit BrusselWorld Health Organization
KeywordsVitalityLongevityMental capacityFunction (biology)PsychologyGerontologyCognitive psychologyMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intrinsic capacity, a crucial concept in healthy ageing, is defined by WHO as "the composite of all the physical and mental capacities that an individual can draw on at any point in time". Vitality capacity is considered the underlying physiological determinant of intrinsic capacity. To advance the measurement and monitoring of vitality capacity, a working group of WHO staff members and twenty experts representing six WHO regions was convened to discuss and clarify the attributes of vitality capacity and to develop a clear working definition of the concept. Potential biomarkers to measure vitality capacity were identified, and the following consensual working definition was developed: vitality capacity is a physiological state (due to normal or accelerated biological ageing processes) resulting from the interaction between multiple physiological systems, reflected in (the level of) energy and metabolism, neuromuscular function, and immune and stress response functions of the body.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.400
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.028 · 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