Medición de las capacidades físicas de adultos mayores de Quebec: un análisis secundario del estudio NuAge Measurement of physical capacities in the elderly: a secondary analysis of the Quebec longitudinal study NuAge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJETIVO: Determinar la validez de una batería de pruebas de capacidades físicas en una muestra de adultos mayores de la comunidad. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Para este estudio se analizaron los datos basales del estudio NuAge, recolectados de diciembre de 2003 a abril de 2005 y que incluyeron 1 793 varones (48%) y mujeres (52%) (74.4 ± 4.1 años) de Montreal, Laval y Sherbrooke, Canadá. Se construyó una batería para la medición de las capacidades físicas (BCF) a partir de la suma de cuatro pruebas según el método propuesto por Guralnik (equilibrio en un pie, velocidad de la marcha en cuatro metros a paso normal, levantarse de una silla cinco veces y el timed "up & go"). Mediante análisis de regresión lineal se establecieron la asociación de la edad, el sexo y la actividad física con la BCF. RESULTADOS: La BCF se asoció de forma significativa con pruebas que evalúan el estado físico y de salud de los individuos, por lo que se determinó la validez de contenido y de criterio. La BCF tuvo un coeficiente alfa de 0.74. Los análisis de regresión probaron que la disminución en las capacidades físicas relacionadas con la edad es similar en varones y mujeres. CONCLUSIÓN: La batería es una herramienta válida en la medición de las capacidades físicas. El mejor desempeño ocurre en los individuos más jóvenes, aquéllos con más actividad física y en los varones. Esta BCF puede servir de modelo para utilizarse en el estudio de las capacidades de los adultos mayores que viven en la comunidad. OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of a battery of functional capacity tests in community-living elderly Canadians. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Design: cross-sectional study. Study population: baseline data from 1793 men and women aged 74.4 ± 4.1 participating in the NuAge longitudinal study were collected from December 2003 to April 2005 and used for the analyses. A global score measuring functional capacities (BFC) was constructed as the sum of four tests according to a method proposed by Guralnik [Timed Up & Go, walking speed (4 m), chair stands (five times), standing balance]. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to study the relationship between age, sex, and physical activity, and BFC score. RESULTS: The global functional capacities score had an internal consistency of 0.74. It was significantly associated with age, sex and measures of mental and physical health status including: cognitive function (<0.001), depressive symptoms (<0.001), nutritional risk (<0.001), burden of disease (<0.001), and level of physical activity (<0.001) thus supporting the construct validity of the global score. Age related differences in BFC were consistent and similar among men and women. CONCLUSIONS: The global score of functional capacity tests provided a valid assessment of physical capacities in the community-living elderly. While men had higher global BFC scores than women, among both sexes the best performance was observed in the youngest age group and in those reporting more physical activity.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".