A comparison of the relationship of 14 performance-based measures with frailty in older women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine which performance measures of physical function are most closely related to frailty and whether physical function is different across levels of frailty. Fifty-three community-dwelling Greek women (63-100 years) participated in this study. Participants were divided into 3 tertiles based on level of frailty as calculated from a frailty index (FI): lowest FI group (<0.19 FI), intermediate FI group (0.19-0.36 FI), and highest FI group (>0.36 FI). Performance measures tested were handgrip and knee extension muscle strength and fatigue, upper and lower body muscular endurance, walking performance, agility, and dynamic balance. The greatest proportion of variance in the FI was explained by combining all performance-based measures of physical function. The performance measures that were most closely related to frailty yet different across levels of frailty were ambulatory mobility, lower body muscular endurance, and nondominant handgrip strength. Walking at a preferred pace had the strongest relationship to frailty rather than walking at maximal pace. Grip strength of the nondominant hand had a stronger correlation with frailty compared with the dominant hand. The FI was a better predictor of physical function than chronological age. The decline in physical function accelerated after the intermediate FI tertile. Definitions of frailty need to combine performance-based measures that can identify impairments in various domains of physical function. The assessment protocols of these measures are important.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".