Preventive care for the elderly. Do family physicians comply with recommendations of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess to what extent family physicians perform the maneuvers for elderly patients recommended by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTF), and to compare physicians' performance among patients who had structured periodic health examinations with performance among those who did not. DESIGN: Retrospective chart audit. SETTING: Family practice unit in a secondary care, university-affiliated hospital in Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Records of 136 community-dwelling patients aged 70 and older. Of 340 randomly selected charts, 108 were excluded and 51 were inaccessible; 100 had had PHEs, and a random sample of 36 who had attended the clinic three or more times was chosen from the remaining 81 [corrected]. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of patients who received the recommended screening maneuvers. RESULTS: Charts were audited for 100 patients who had structured periodic health examinations and 36 who did not but who attended the clinic three or more times during an 18-month period. Screening rates among patients who had structured examinations ranged from 28% of patients screened for hearing impairment to 100% screened for hypertension. Patients who did not have structured examinations were significantly less likely to receive screening maneuvers. CONCLUSIONS: Screening rates were below desirable levels in patients older than 70 years. Screening during structured health examinations seems to be more effective than opportunistic screening for patients 70 and older.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".