Digestive Symptoms in Older Adults: Prevalence and Associations with Institutionalization and Mortality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digestive symptoms are common in adults. However, little is known about their prevalence in older adults and the association of digestive symptoms with institutionalization and mortality in community-dwelling older adults. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of digestive symptoms among older adults in Canada and whether they are associated with increased risk of institutionalization and mortality, independent of the effect of potential confounders. METHODS: The present study was a secondary analysis of data collected from community-dwelling participants 65 years of age and older in the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. Measures incuded age, sex, presence of digestive symptoms, cognition, impairment in activities of daily living (ADL) and self-reported health. Outcome measures included death or institutionalization over the 10 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Digestive symptoms were found in 2288 (25.6%) of the 8949 subjects. Those with digestive symptoms were older, with a mean difference in age of six months (P=0.007). Digestive symptoms were more common among women (28.4%) than men (20.3%), among individuals with poor self-reported health and those with an increased number of impairments in their ADLs (P<0.001). The presence of digestive symptoms was associated with higher mortality (HR 1.15 [95% CI 1.05 to 1.25] adjusted for age, sex, cognitive function and ADL impairment); however, this association was not statistically significant after adjusting for self-reported health. CONCLUSION: Although digestive symptoms were associated with increased mortality independent of age and sex, cognition and function, this association was largely explained by poor self-assessed health. Digestive symptoms were not associated with institutionalization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".