Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 288

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Progressive versus Catastrophic Disability: A Longitudinal View of the Disablement Process

Open access
Ferrucci, L., Guralnik, J. M., Simonsick, E., Salive, M. E., Corti, C., Langlois, J.·1996·The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is little epidemiologic data on the development of disability over time in older persons. This study uses prospective data from cohorts followed annually for 6 to 7 years to identify persons who developed severe disability and to characterize the time course of their disabling process and subsequent mortality. METHODS: Incidence rates of severe disability, defined as need for help in three or more activities of daily living (ADLs), were estimated for 6,640 persons who had not reported severe disability at baseline and at the first four annual follow-up visits. Among persons developing severe disability, those who reported no need for help in ADLs in previous interviews were defined as cases of catastrophic disability, and those who had previously reported some disability in ADLs were defined as cases of progressive disability. RESULTS: Overall, 212 subjects developed progressive and 227 developed catastrophic disability. The rates of progressive disability and catastrophic disability were 11.3 and 12.1 cases per 1,000 person-years, respectively. For both types of disability, incidence rates increased exponentially with age, but the increase was steeper for progressive disability. At ages 70-74, less than 25% of severe disability was progressive, while over age 85 progressive disability represented more than half of severe disability. Incidence rates of total and both types of severe disability were similar in men and women. Mortality after severe disability onset was extremely high. Survival was unrelated to age at disability onset and type of disability but was significantly longer in women than in men (median 3.44 vs 2.12 years; p < .0001). CONCLUSION: Tracking the development of disability provides new and important insights into the disability experience in older men and women that are potentially relevant in planning preventive, intervention, and long-term care strategies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/gerona/51a.3.m123

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 288

Metadata

Authors
Ferrucci, L., Guralnik, J. M., Simonsick, E., Salive, M. E., Corti, C., & Langlois, J.
Venue
The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
Published
1996-05-01
Volume
51A
Issue
3
Pages
M123-M130
ISSN
  • 1079-5006 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-535X
OpenAlex
W2082943332
Cited by
288
References
1
FWCI
2.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Progressive versus Catastrophic Disability: A Longitudinal View of the Disablement Process. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/gerona/51a.3.m123
The paper
Ferrucci, L., Guralnik, J. M., Simonsick, E., Salive, M. E., Corti, C., & Langlois, J. (1996). Progressive versus Catastrophic Disability: A Longitudinal View of the Disablement Process. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/51a.3.m123

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.