Dual Sensory Impairment and Functional Status in a Prospective Cohort Study*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To examine the impact of visual impairment, hearing impairment, and dual sensory impairment (DSI) on functional status in older adults. Methods: Secondary analysis of the Manitoba Health and Aging Study, a population-based cohort study of 1751 adults age 65+. Data were collected from 1991 to 1992 (Time 1), with follow-up five years later (Time 2). Vision and hearing were self-reported. Functional status was measured using the Older Americans Resource and Services (OARS). Logistic regression models were constructed to assess functional status at both Time 1 and Time 2. Results: Dual sensory impairment (DSI) at Time 1 predicted poor functional status at both Time 1 and Time 2. The adjusted odds ratios (OR; 95% confidence interval [CI]) for poor functional status at Time 1 for those with only hearing impairment was 1.74 (1.25, 2.44) for visual impairment was 2.95 (2.19, 3.98), and for DSI was 3.58 (2.58, 4.95). At Time 2, the adjusted ORs for poor functional status for those with only hearing impairment was 1.32 (0.86, 2.03), for visual impairment was 1.63 (1.05, 2.52), and for DSI was 2.61 (1.54, 4.40). Conclusions: DSI is associated with lower functional status, but the effect of visual impairment is more pronounced than hearing impairment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; 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".