MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7100553374

Decision Editor: Merril Silverstein, PhD Examining Late-Life Functional Limitation Trajectories and Their Associations With Underlying Onset, Recovery, and Mortality

2012· article· en· W7100553374 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrajectoryMultinomial logistic regressionSet (abstract data type)Regression analysisLongitudinal dataPopulationHealth and Retirement StudyQuarter (Canadian coin)Term (time)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives. Identify common trajectories of physical functional limitation and mortality among Taiwanese 50 and older as they age, link these to underlying transitions in onset, recovery, and mortality, and assess associations between trajectories and a set of risk factors. Method. Longitudinal data from 4 waves of the Survey of Health and Living Status of the Middle-Aged and Elderly in Taiwan, collected between 1996 and 2007, are analyzed using a summary measure indicating difficulty with one or more of 7 physical functions. A group-based trajectory model identifies common trajectories. Shorter term transition probabilities that underlie multiperiod trajectories are examined. Multinomial regression associates risk factors with trajectory group membership. Results. Best fitting the data is a model with 3 groups characterized as early, mid, and late onset of limitation. Roughly half the population follows the trajectory of mid onset and a quarter each of the other 2. Females and those least educated are most likely to belong to the early-onset group. Discussion. The analysis advances understanding of late-life functioning by focusing on the heterogeneity of func-tional limitation experience, appropriately accounting for the relation between functional limitation and mortality and

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0630.028

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.176 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAging and Gerontology Research→French-language works237,207→