Breathlessness limiting exertion in very old adults: findings from the Newcastle 85+ study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Long-term breathlessness is more common with age. However, in the oldest old (>85 years), little is known about the prevalence, or impact of breathlessness. We estimated breathlessness limiting exertion prevalence and explored (i) associated characteristics; and (ii) whether breathlessness limiting exertion explains clinical and social/functional outcomes. METHODS: Health and socio-demographic characteristics were extracted from the Newcastle 85+ Study cohort. Phase 1 (baseline) and follow-up data (18 months, Phase 2; 36 months, Phase 3; 60 months, Phase 4 after baseline) were examined using descriptive statistics and cross-sectional regression models. RESULTS: Eight hundred seventeen participants provided baseline breathlessness data (38.2% men; mean 84.5 years; SD 0.4). The proportions with any limitation of exertion, or severe limitation by breathlessness were 23% (95% confidence intervals (CIs) 20-25%) and 9% (95%CIs 7-11%) at baseline; 20% (16-25%) and 5% (3-8%) at Phase 4. Having more co-morbidities (odds ratio (OR) 1.34, 1.18-1.54; P < 0.001), or self-reported respiratory (OR 1.88, 1.25-2.82; P = 0.003) or cardiovascular disease (OR 2.38, 1.58-3.58; P < 0.001) were associated with breathlessness limiting exertion. Breathlessness severely limiting exertion was associated with poorer self-rated health (OR 0.50, 029-0.86; P = 0.012), depression (beta-coefficient 0.11, P = 0.001), increased primary care contacts (beta-co-efficient 0.13, P = 0.001) and number of nights in hospital (OR 1.81; 1.02-3.20; P = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Breathlessness limiting exertion appears to become less prevalent over time due to death or withdrawal of participants with cardio-respiratory illness. Breathlessness severely limiting exertion had a wide range of service utilisation and wellbeing impacts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".