MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413416892 · doi:10.3390/geriatrics10040111

Adverse Childhood Experiences and Sarcopenia in Later Life: Baseline Data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging

2025· article· en· W4413416892 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Menelaos Dimitriadis, Kitty J.E. Kokkeler, Emiel O. Hoogendijk, Radboud M. Marijnissen, Iván Aprahamian, Hans W. Jeuring, Richard C. Oude Voshaar

Bibliographic record

VenueGeriatrics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsMedicineSarcopeniaBaseline (sea)Longitudinal studyGerontologyLongitudinal dataAdverse effectDemographyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUNDS: Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are linked to early and long-lasting mental health issues and somatic multimorbidity. Emerging evidence suggests ACEs may also accelerate physical frailty in old age. This study examines the association between ACEs and sarcopenia, an ageing-related disease and core component of frailty. METHODS: Baseline data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA), including 25,327 participants aged 45-85 years (50.3% female sex) were analyzed. Sarcopenia was defined using the revised European Working Group of Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP2) guidelines. ACE were assessed via the Childhood Experiences of Violence Questionnaire and the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health Wave III questionnaire, covering eight ACE categories. Multiple logistic regression models examined the association between the number of ACE count and sarcopenia, which were adjusted for age, sex, education, income, and ethnicity. RESULTS: = 0.043), but this result was in the opposite direction we hypothesized. Sensitivity analyses confirmed findings across different operationalisations of ACE and sarcopenia. CONCLUSIONS: Higher ACE exposure was not associated with sarcopenia in middle aged and older adults. The unexpected protective association in the oldest-old subgroup may reflect survival bias. Age-stratified longitudinal studies are needed to clarify this relationship.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeriatricsSame topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207