Distinct factors explain life space mobility below and above the age of 75 years old in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Life space mobility (LSM) is important for participation in daily life. It is influenced by individual and environmental factors and tends to decline with age. Although LSM has been studied in older adults, stratification of this population into age subgroups has not been performed, creating a gap in understanding the factors associated with LSM in a more granular manner. This cross-sectional study aimed to identify the factors associated with LSM in community-dwelling older adults below and above the age of 75. Participants aged 65 and older without neurological conditions or dementia were recruited. LSM was assessed using the Life Space Assessment (LSA), mobility with the Timed Up and Go test (TUG), cognition with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), fear of falling with the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale (ABC), and depression with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Additional self-reported data included employment/volunteering, frequency of leaving the house, functional status, and number of medications. Separate regression models were conducted for each age subgroup. Two-hundred forty-two older adults (28.9% men) were recruited (mean (SD) age 73.7(6.4) years), with 40.9% aged over 75. In the younger subgroup, sex, frequency of leaving the house, TUG, and employment/volunteer status significantly explained 42.8% of the variance in LSM. In the older subgroup, sex, age, ABC, MoCA, and TUG significantly explained 46.9% of the variance in LSM. Distinct factors are associated with LSM in each age subgroup. Accordingly, future interventions should be tailored for each subgroup individually.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".