Conceptualizations of frailty in relation to older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this article is to discuss the concept of frailty and its adequacy in identifying and describing older adults as frail. BACKGROUND: Despite the dramatic increase in use of the term 'frailty' over the past two decades, there is a lack of consensus in the literature about its meaning and use, and no clear conceptual guidelines for identifying and describing older adults as frail. Differences in theoretical perspectives will influence policy decisions regarding eligibility for, and allocation of, scarce health care resources among older adults. METHOD: The article presents a literature review and synthesis of definitions and conceptual models of frailty in relation to older adults. The first part of the paper is a summary of the synonyms, antonyms and definitions of the term frailty. The second part is a critical evaluation of conceptual models of frailty. Six conceptual models are analysed on the basis of four main categories of assumptions about: (1) the nature of scientific knowledge; (2) the level of analysis; (3) the ageing process; (4) the stability of frailty. The implications of these are discussed in relation to clinical practice, policy and research. CONCLUSION: The review gives guidelines for a new theoretical approach to the concept of frailty in older adults: (1) it must be a multidimensional concept that considers the complex interplay of physical, psychological, social and environmental factors; (2) the concept must not be age-related, suggesting a negative and stereotypical view of ageing; (3) the concept must take into account an individual's context and incorporate subjective perceptions; (4) the concept must take into account the contribution of both individual and environmental factors.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".