MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099272183

Abstract Improvement and decline in health status from late middle age: Modeling age-related changes in deficit accumulation

2007· article· en· W7099272183 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalPoisson regressionOddsPopulationProspective cohort studyOdds ratioCohortPoisson distribution
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a prospective multi-panel cohort study, we investigated how, from late middle age, individuals ’ health status improves or declines. In the Canadian National Population Health Survey, transition probabilities between different health states were estimated for 4330 people (58.8 % women) aged 55+ at baseline over 2-year intervals from 1994 to 2000. Health status was defined by a deficit count, using 33 health-related variables combined in a frailty index. For each time interval, the chance of accumulating deficits increased linearly with the number of deficits. Older survivors (aged 70–85) showed a slightly lower chance of stability or improvement (52%; 95 % confidence interval 50–54%) compared with those in late middle age (56%; 54–58%). Changes in health states can be described with high accuracy (R 2 = 0.92) by a modified Poisson distribution, using four parameters: the background odds of accumulating additional deficits, the chance of incurring more or fewer deficits, given the existing number, and the corresponding probabilities of dying. An age-invariant limit to deficit accumulation was observed at 22 deficits. From late middle age, transitions in health states occur with a regularity that is easily modeled. Improvements in health can occur at any age. At all ages, there is a limit to deficit accumulation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExperimental Learning in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207