MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1824086090 · doi:10.1159/000381164

Operationalizing Frailty Using the Frailty Phenotype and Deficit Accumulation Approaches

2015· review· en· W1824086090 on OpenAlexaff
Olga Theou, Jeremy Walston, Kenneth Rockwood

Bibliographic record

VenueInterdisciplinary topics in gerontology and geriatrics · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsOperationalizationVulnerability (computing)GerontologyFrailty IndexPhenotypePsychologyMedicineComputer scienceBiologyGeneticsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In both demographic and clinical studies, frailty is understood as a multidimensional state of increased vulnerability compared with the status of others of the same age. Of the many theoretical definitions of frailty, two are commonly employed: the physical frailty/phenotypic approach and the deficit accumulation approach. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss how frailty is conceptualized and operationalized based on these two approaches.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.366
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.085 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations102
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterdisciplinary topics in gerontology and geriatricsSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207