Personalidad jurídica en derecho internacional

The previous analysis revealed that 90+ subjects classified as “A” by Franceschi and subjects classified as “Exceptional” by Gondo do not differ for all the variables of the GEHA questionnaire that were not included in the classification criteria. Therefore, this result drove us to a first definition of the best group of 90+ siblings, i.e. subjects classified as “A” by Franceschi plus subjects classified as “Exceptional” by Gondo for a total of 177 individuals.

Now, the question is: which characteristics should be respected in order to be part of this group of best subjects? Using techniques of Data Mining we were able to reclassify our study population using a smaller and meaningful set of variables; a synthetic criterion able to include almost all these 177 subjects is based on the following conditions: SMMSE ≥ 20, Ability to walk for 500 meters without aids and Haemoglobin ≥ 10 g/dl (Table 4.19).

Table 4.19 – Model N.1: synthetic criteria for the identification of “The Best 1” subjects

According to this new classification, hereafter identified as “Model N.1”, 90+ siblings were divided in two groups: the “best subjects”, hereafter identified as “The Best 1” (n = 177, 23% of the sample), and the rest of the sample, included “proxy subjects”, hereafter identified as “The Others 1” (n = 588, 77% of the sample) (Table 4.20). Considering the gender composition, it results that males are classified as healthier than females (30.6% of males are included in “The Best 1” category versus 20.1% of females). Moreover, OR value shows that being females reduces the probability of being classified as “The Best 1”.

Table 4.20 – Model N.1: “The Best 1” versus “The Others 1”

N % N % p Value OR (95% CI)

Males 68 30,6 154 69,4 1

Females 109 20,1 434 79,9 0,57 ( 0,40-0,81)

The Best 1

To confirm the validity of the “Model N.1”, we performed an univariate analysis between “The Best 1” subjects and “The Others 1”:

(1) we assessed age, marital status, cohabitation, education, smoking status, alcohol intake, as examples to explore the influences of the social and environment factors on the health status and we compared these values among the groups;

(2) we also compared self-reported health, attitude towards life and comorbidity, as further parameters of health status (since Franceschi classification included only four age-related diseases, cancer, ictus, renal failure and liver disease);

(3) we also compared hand grip, chair stand test, 500 metres walking ability and going up and down the stairs without help as measured functional parameters;

(4) finally we compared the absence of falls, hospitalisation and loss of weight within the last year together with the vital status at January 1^st, 2009 as main external criteria.

OR were calculated to evaluate the association between single variables and the health status.

The results, reported in Table 4.21-4.22-4.23, are divided by gender and the unadjusted OR were corrected for family cluster because the population is composed of 90+ siblings and not of 90+

singletons.

On the whole, data indicate that the “The Best 1” subjects are actually different from “The Others 1” for all the variables considered in the analysis, even if the overall picture is different between males and females. In particular, males are in better shape than females and their phenotype is less complex than females because a restricted number of factors is associated with health status.

On the contrary, females present a more heterogeneous phenotype, where much more factors contribute to the definition of the health status. Results indicate that:

(1) parameters related to the social and environmental field do not explain the health status both in males and in females, even if the fact of being married is protective for males but not for females; however, they became significant in the total population;

(2) self-reported health, attitude towards life and comorbidity are associated with the health status both in males and in females, even if in females they play a stronger role;

(3) parameters related to the physical performance (hand grip and chair stand) and functional limitations (the Nagi items) are strongly associated with the health status both in males and in females, with higher scores in females;

(4) finally the absence of falls, hospitalisation and loss of weight within the last are all positively associated with a good health status both in males and in females and, interestingly, the vital status is protective only for females, suggesting that for males the fact of being classified in “The Best 1” category is less protective than for females.

Table 4.21 – Model N.1: Univariate Analysis on males

Age 92,4 2,1 93,8 2,9 0,000 0,80 (0,70-0,91)

Centre

Years at school 7,6 5,4 6,8 4,9 0,306 1,0 (0,97-1,09)

Smoking

Never Smoker 24 35,3 64 41,8 1

Former Smoker 41 60,3 85 55,6 2,0 (0,42-79,59)

Smokers 3 4,4 4 2,6 1,28 (0,71-2,31)

Use of alcohol every day 53 77,9 104 68,0 0,132 1,66 (0,84-3,3)

"How is your health in general?"

Neither optimistic nor pessimistic/Pessimistic 22 32,4 59 38,3 0,62 (0,33-1,18)

Proxy and Missing 0 0,0 18 11,7 not assessable

500 metres walking ability without aids 68 100,0 39 25,3 0,000 not assessable

Going up and down the stairs without help 67 98,5 102 66,2 0,000 34,1 (4,55-256,6)

Hand Grip (Kg) ^*

Ability to perform Chair Stand test 57 83,8 57 37,0 0,000 8,8 (4,26-18,24)

No Fall within the last year 59 86,8 107 69,5 0,006 2,88 (1,31-6,31)

No Hospitalization within the last year 60 88,2 114 74,0 0,018 2,63 (1,16-5,97)

No Loss of weight within the last year 62 91,2 126 81,8 0,074 2,30 (0,89-5,95)

Vital Status

Table 4.22 – Model N.1: Univariate Analysis on females

Age 92,2 2,1 94,4 3,0 0,000 0,71 (0,64-0,80)

Centre

Widow/Widowerer , Divorced, Separated 91 83,5 366 84,3 0,88 (0,48-1,60)

Cohabitation

Subjects living alone 59 54,1 73 16,8 1

Subjects living with others 50 45,9 361 83,2 0,17 (0,11-0,27)

Education

Years at school 6,1 3,5 5,1 3,3 0,003 1,1 (1,02-1,16)

Smoking

Never Smoker 95 87,2 389 89,6 1

Former Smoker 10 9,2 37 8,5 2,1 (0,57-7,3)

Smokers 4 3,7 8 1,8 1,1 (0,55-2,2)

Use of alcohol every day 61 56,0 209 48,2 0,145 1,37 (0,89-2,1)

"How is your health in general?"

Neither optimistic nor pessimistic/Pessimistic 42 38,5 198 45,6 0,58 (0,38-0,88)

Proxy and Missing 0 0,0 53 12,2 not assessable

500 metres walking ability without aids 109 100,0 68 15,7 0,000 not assessable

Going up and down the stairs without help 108 99,1 205 47,2 0,000 120,64 (16,7-867,6)

Hand Grip (Kg) ^*

Ability to perform Chair Stand test 96 88,1 120 27,6 0,000 19,3 (10,6-35,2)

No Fall within the last year 85 78,0 253 58,3 0,000 2,53 (1,56-4,1)

No Hospitalization within the last year 97 89,0 320 73,7 0,001 2,88 (1,54-5,4)

No Loss of weight within the last year 97 89,0 333 76,7 0,005 2,45 (1,30-4,61)

Vital Status

Table 4.23 – Model N. 1: Univariate Analysis on all 90+ subjects (OR are adjusted for family cluster)

N % mean SD N % mean SD p Value OR (95% CI)

Age 92,3 2,1 94,2 3 0,000 0,74 (0,68-0,80)

Centre

Widow/Widowerer , Divorced, Separated 122 68,9 454 77,2 0,89 (0,52-1,52)

Cohabitation

Subjects living alone 72 40,7 96 16,3 1

Subjects living with others 105 59,3 492 83,7 0,28 (0,19-0,41)

Education

Years at school 6,7 4,4 5,5 3,9 0,001 1,06 (1,02-1,11)

Smoking

Never Smoker 119 67,2 453 77,0 1

Former Smoker 51 28,8 122 20,7 2,2 (0,83-5,92)

Smokers 7 4,0 12 2,0 1,59 (1,09-2,33)

Use of alcohol every day 114 64,4 313 53,3 0,009 1,58 (1,12-2,25)

"How is your health in general?"

Neither optimistic nor pessimistic/Pessimistic 64 36,2 257 43,7 0,57 (0,40-0,82)

Proxy and Missing 0 0,0 71 12,1 not assessable

500 metres walking ability without aids 177 100,0 107 18,2 0,000 not assessable

Going up and down the stairs without help 175 98,9 307 52,2 0,000 80,1 (19,7-325,4)

Hand Grip (Kg) ^*

Ability to perform Chair Stand test 153 86,4 177 30,1 0,000 14,8 (9,25-23,70)

No Fall within the last year 144 81,4 360 61,2 0,000 2,76 (1,84-4,15)

No Hospitalization within the last year 157 88,7 434 73,8 0,000 2,78 (1,71-4,54)

No Loss of weight within the last year 159 89,8 459 78,1 0,000 2,48 (1,48-4,16)

Vital Status