Decline in Activities of Daily Living After a Visit to a Canadian Emergency Department for Minor Injuries in Independent Older Adults: Are Frail Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment at Greater Risk?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare functional decline in activities of daily living (ADLs) of older adults visiting emergency departments (EDs) for minor injuries according to frailty and cognitive status. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Seven Canadian EDs. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 65 and older who were independent in ADLs at baseline were recruited between March 2011 and March 2013 (N=1,114). MEASUREMENTS: The Older American Resources and Services (OARS) questionnaire was completed during the ED visit or within 7 days and 3 and 6 months after a minor injury to ascertain functional decline (≥1-point drop in ADL score). Participants were considered frail based on the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale (≥Level 4, vulnerable). Cognitive impairment was defined as performing below cutoffs on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (<23/30) or Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (≤31/50). Four subgroups were created: frail with cognitive impairment, frail without cognitive impairment, nonfrail with cognitive impairment, nonfrail without cognitive impairment. Sociodemographic and health data were also collected. RESULTS: Information on OARS, frailty, and cognitive impairment were available for 850 at 3 months and 728 at 6 months; 19.9% of participants showed declining function at 3 months and 25.3% at 6 months. After adjusting for age, number of comorbidities, and instrumental activity of daily living disability at baseline, frail participants with cognitive impairment were at significantly greater risk of functional decline at 3 (adjusted risk ratio (aRR)=1.89; 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.38-2.59) and 6 (aRR=2.09; 95% CI=1.45-3.00) months than nonfrail participants without cognitive impairment. CONCLUSION: Easy-to-administer frailty and cognitive screening tools should be included in ED assessments to identify independent older adults at high risk of functional decline after minor injury so that appropriate services may be provided to prevent deterioration in ADLs.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".