Community ambulation in older adults and people with OA – a model verification using Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are health and well-being benefits of community ambulation; however, many older adults do not regularly walk outside of their home. Objectives were to estimate the associations between latent constructs related to community ambulation in older adults aged 65-85 (65+), and in adults with osteoarthritis (OA) aged 45-85. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of the comprehensive baseline and maintaining contact questionnaire data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study of Aging (CLSA) was completed. Based on a previous model of community ambulation post-stroke, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to develop measurement and structural models for two groups: older adults 65+ and people with OA. Multi-group SEM was conducted to test measurement invariance across sex and age groups. Measurement models were developed for the following latent factors: ambulation (frequency of walking outside/week, hours walked/day, ability to walk without help, frequency and aids used in different settings); health perceptions (general health, pain frequency/intensity); timed functional mobility (gait speed, timed up-and-go, sit-to-stand, balance). Variables of depression, falls, age, sex, and fear of walking alone at night were covariates in the structural models. RESULTS: Data were used from 11,619 individuals in the 65+ group (mean age 73 years ±6, 49% female) and 5546 individuals in the OA group (mean age 67 ± 10, 60% female). The final 65+ model had a close fit with RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.018 (0.017, 0.019), CFI = 0.91, SRMR = 0.09. For the OA group, RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.021 (0.020, 0.023), CFI = 0.92, SRMR = 0.07. Health perceptions and timed functional mobility had a positive association with ambulation. Depression was associated with ambulation through negative associations with health perceptions and timed functional mobility. Multi-group SEM results reveal the measurement model was retained for males and females in the 65+ group, for males and females and for age groups (65+, < 65) in the OA group. CONCLUSIONS: The community ambulation model post-stroke was verified with adults aged 65+ and for those with OA. The models of community ambulation can be used to frame and conceptualize community ambulation research and clinical interventions.
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".