Defining and Measuring Preclinical Mobility Limitation: An Expert Consensus Exercise Informed by a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early change in function in older adults has been termed preclinical disability (PCD). PCD has been understudied compared to other stages of disability because it is unlikely to receive comparative priority in clinical settings. It has major implications for prevention and population health as it may be the optimal time to intervene to prevent further decline. A standardized approach to research in PCD, including a common definition and measurement approaches, is needed to advance this work. METHODS: The process to establish how PCD should be defined and measured was undertaken in 2 stages: (1) a scoping review of the literature, which was used to inform (2) a web-enabled consensus meeting with content experts. RESULTS: The scoping review and the consensus meeting support the use of the term preclinical mobility limitation (PCML) and that it should be measured using both patient-reported and performance-based measures. It was agreed that the definition of PCML should include modification of frequency and/or method of task completion, without overt disability, and that requisite mobility tasks include walking (distance and speed), stairs, and transfers. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there are few standardized assessments that can identify PCML. PCML is the term that most clearly describes the stage where people experience a change in routine mobility tasks, without a perception of disability. Further evaluation into the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of outcome measures is needed to advance research on PCML.
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 | 0.262 | 0.380 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.040 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".