Clinical and physiological risk factors contributing to the restricted mobility in older adults: a longitudinal analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobility limitations (e.g., using wheelchair) have been closely linked to diminished functional independence and quality of life in older adults. The regulation of mobility is pertaining to multiple neurophysiologic and sociodemographic factors. We here aimed to characterize the relationships of these factors to the risk of restricted mobility in older adults. METHODS: In this longitudinal study, 668 older adults with intact mobility at baseline completed the baseline assessments of clinical characteristics, cognitive function, sleep quality, activities of daily living (ADL), walking performance, beat-to-beat blood pressure, and structural MRI of the brain. Then 506 of them (mean age = 70.7 ± 7.5 years) responded to the follow-up interview on the mobility limitation (as defined by if using wheelchair, cane, or walkers, or being disabled and lying on the bed) after 18 ± 3.5 months. Logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the relationships between the baseline characteristics and the follow-up mobility restriction. RESULTS: At baseline, compared to intact-mobility group (n = 475), restricted-mobility group (n = 31) were older, with lower score of ADL and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), greater score of Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), poorer cardio- and cerebral vascular function, and slower walking speeds (ps < 0.05). The logistic regression analysis demonstrated that participants who were with history of falls, uncontrolled-hypertension, and/or greater Fazekas scale (odds ratios (ORs):1.3 ~ 13.9, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) = 1.1 ~ 328.2), walked slower, and/or with lower ADL score (ORs: 0.0026 ~ 0.9; 95%CI: 0.0001 ~ 0.99) at baseline, would have significantly greater risk of restricted mobility (p < 0.05; VIFs = 1.2 ~ 1.9). CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide novel profile of potential risk factors, including vascular characteristics, psycho-cognitive and motor performance, for the development of restricted mobility in near future in older adults, ultimately helping the design of appropriate clinical and rehabilitative programs for mobility in this population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".