MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6958050378 · doi:10.60692/8pw8z-g5690

EARLY-LIFE WAR EXPOSURE AND LATER-LIFE FRAILTY AMONG OLDER ADULTS IN VIETNAM: DOES WAR HASTEN AGING?

2023· article· en· W6958050378 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssociation (psychology)Life course approachHealth and Retirement StudyFrailty IndexHealthy agingConstruct (python library)Latent class modelSpanish Civil War

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We aimed to assess the nature and degree of association between exposure to potentially traumatic wartime experiences in early life and later-life frailty. The Vietnam Health and Aging Study included war survivors in Vietnam, age 60+. Latent class analysis (LCA) is used to construct classes exposed to similar numbers and types of wartime experiences. Frailty is measured using a deficit accumulation approach that approximates biological aging. LCA yields 9 unique wartime exposure classes, ranging from extreme exposure to non-exposed. Higher frailty levels among those with heavy/severe exposures certain combinations of experiences, including intense bombing, witnessing death firsthand, having experienced sleep disruptions during wartime, and having feared for one's life during war. The difference in frailty-associated aging between the most and least affected individuals is more than 18 years. War trauma hastens aging and warrants greater attention toward long-term implications of war on health among vast post-conflict populations across the globe.

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)0.002
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information System→Same topicPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research→French-language works237,207→