MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390640706 · doi:10.1186/s12877-023-04598-3

Community ambulation in older adults and people with OA – a model verification using Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) data

2024· article· en· W4390640706 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ruth Barclay, Yixiu Liu, Jacquie Ripat, Robert B. Tate, Scott Nowicki, Depeng Jiang, Sandra C. Webber

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Geriatrics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsStructural equation modelingMedicineGerontologyGeneralized estimating equationGaitLongitudinal studyRehabilitationPhysical therapyStroke (engine)Physical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GeriatricsSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207