Association between sociodemographic factors and mobility limitation among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobility is an independent predictor of physical functionality, healthy ageing, and quality of life. Various literatures have associated mobility limitation in older adulthood with demographic and socioeconomic factors. Hence, we propose a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise the association between sociodemographic factors and mobility limitations in older adults. METHODS AND ANALYSES: This protocol was written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. We will perform a comprehensive search of all observational studies that assessed the relationship between age, gender, race, place, education, income, occupation, social status, and walking distance, time, or speed. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, AgeLine, and SPORTDiscus) will be searched from inception to 28 February 2023. We will supplement the database search by manually searching the reference lists of all identified and relevant full-text articles. Two independent reviewers will be responsible for screening articles, data extraction, and assessment of bias. We will appraise the study quality and risk of bias using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). A meta-analysis will be considered if data from the selected studies are homogeneous, otherwise, a narrative synthesis of the extracted data will be presented. DISCUSSION: Mobility limitation leads to frequent falls, dependency, morbidity, and death among older adults. This review is necessary, to identify and prioritise important sociodemographic factors during older adults' clinical assessment and policy development. It is the first phase of a multi-methods study seeking to develop a prognostic mobility trajectory for community-dwelling older adults. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022298570.
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 | 0.030 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.047 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".