MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390608640 · doi:10.1007/s12126-023-09553-6

Cutoffs to Identify Restricted Life-space Mobility in Older Adults Across Different Contexts: The International Mobility in Aging Study

2024· article· en· W4390608640 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAgeing International · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad de Caldas
KeywordsCutoffReceiver operating characteristicLogistic regressionActivities of daily livingGerontologyPopulationDepression (economics)DemographyPsychologyMedicinePsychiatryInternal medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract different populations have different averages of life-space assessment scores and defining cutoff values of clinical significance by each population should take into consideration. Different cutoffs to define restricted life space have been reported. The most common is a score of 60 points. There are other cutoffs derived from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and used to classify older adults according to their ability in activities of daily living (ADLs) (52.3 points) or instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) (56 points); other cutoffs are specialized for people with cognitive impairment (26.75 points) or people with spinal cord injury who need mobility aids (78.5 points). The aims were to identify cutoff points of Life Space Assessment (LSA) in older adults in different sites and to determine the relationship of the cutoff scores with mobility disability and depression. The study population was composed of community-dwelling adults aged 65–74 years who were not institutionalized. An ROC analysis was constructed, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to identify the optimal cutoff that discriminates life-space restriction for each city. Logistic regressions were executed by site to comprehend the association among restricted LSA and mobility disability and depression. In total, 1890 participants were included in the analyses (52.38% women, 37.19% mobility disability and 21.32% had depression). Canada cities had the highest cutoff, while Tirana and Natal had the lowest cutoff (< 50). Kingston was the site with the highest association between life-space restriction and mobility disability (OR 5.4, 95% CI 2.9–10). Saint-Hyacinthe, Tirana, and Manizales had significant associations between depression and restricted life space (OR 3.25, 95% CI 1.53–6.89, OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.88–5.24, and OR 3.99, 95% CI 2.28–6.98, respectively). Different cutoffs to define restricted life-space have been identified in elderly people at different sites. The analysis of the relationship between the restricted life space and personal characteristics like depression and mobility disability supported these findings. The groupings produced by the cutoff points for each site showed notable variations. These findings emphasize the importance of population-based cutoffs to improve the general applicability of LSM criteria and take into consideration the importance of site-specific approaches.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.407 · 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