MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412866200 · doi:10.2196/74313

Urban Quality and Biochemical, Hematological, and Nutritional Markers in Older Adults: Cross-Sectional Geospatial Study

2025· article· en· W4412866200 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carlos Mena, Yony Ormazábal, Nacim Molina, Eduardo Fuentes, Juan Carlos Cantillana, Victoria Villalobos, Moisés H. Sandoval, Iván Palomo, Diego Arauna

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Aging · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo
KeywordsCross-sectional studyPreprintEnvironmental healthGeospatial analysisGerontologyMedicineGeographyComputer scienceCartographyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The urban environment is an important determinant of frailty, primarily through factors such as infrastructure that supports physical activity, availability of social and medical support, and access to nutritious food. Given the increasing aging population, understanding the link between urban quality, frailty, and metabolic health is crucial for effective public health and urban planning interventions. Objective: This study aims to quantify the impact of distinct urban domains (built-environment characteristics, accessibility to essential services, availability of green and recreational spaces, and neighborhood socioeconomic context) on frailty status, nutritional profile, and hematological or biochemical biomarkers in community-dwelling older adults by integrating geospatial analysis. Methods: A cohort of 251 older adults (aged older than 65 years) was studied. Frailty was assessed using the Frailty Trait Scale 5, and nutritional status was determined using the Controlling Nutritional Status score. Hematological and biochemical parameters were evaluated in a subset of 70 participants by MINDRAY automatic equipment. A spatial analysis of frailty was conducted by incorporating Geographic Information System layers that mapped the distribution of urban facilities, including fruit and vegetable shops, senior centers, pharmacies, emergency health centers, parks and squares, community centers, and exercise facilities. Statistical analyses included t tests, Mann-Whitney U test, ANOVA, and correlation analyses. Results: The prevalence of frailty was 17.5%. Frail individuals exhibited significantly higher BMI (mean 31.5, SD 4.4 vs mean 28.5, SD 4.5 kg/m²; P=.0001). When comparing the upper (Q4) and lower (Q1) quartiles of urban quality, Q4 participants had higher Frailty Trait Scale 5 scores (mean 15.2, SD 7.4 vs mean 11.8, SD 6.4; P=.0334) and lower handgrip strength (mean 19.1, SD 4.4 vs mean 22.8, SD 7.3 kg; P=.006). Frail individuals resided significantly closer to emergency health centers (P=.0010), family health centers (P=.0412), and exercise facilities (P=.0322). In addition, bilirubin (Spearman ρ=0.33; P=.0049), serum iron (Spearman ρ=0.27; P=.0272), transferrin saturation (Spearman ρ=0.24; P=.0386), red blood cell count (Spearman ρ=0.26; P=.0303), and red blood cell distribution width (Spearman ρ=0.23; P=.0462) were positively correlated with urban quality. Frail participants also had higher Controlling Nutritional Status scores (P=.0323), which were positively correlated with urban quality (Spearman ρ=0.25; P=.0359). Conclusions: Urban quality was significantly associated with hematological parameters, nutritional status, and frailty. Frail individuals in areas with better urban quality exhibit lower handgrip strength, higher frailty scores, and greater proximity to emergency rooms, community health centers, and exercise facilities. This spatial distribution may reflect higher accessibility to health care and recreational resources among frail participants. Urban planning and public health strategies should focus on creating age-friendly environments to prevent frailty and improve health outcomes.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR AgingSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207