MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997462081 · doi:10.1080/09638280110055084

Changes in physical functioning in institutionalized older adults

2001· article· en· W1997462081 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Bédard, Bruce Weaver, Julie Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Peter's HospitalLakehead UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonLakehead Psychiatric Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivities of daily livingLong-term careGerontologyRange of motionRehabilitationPsychological interventionBalance (ability)Depression (economics)MedicinePhysical therapyPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBaseline (sea)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Chronic care and long-term care facilities have a responsibility to provide care that enables residents to attain or maintain their maximal functional capacity. This paper uses the Minimum Data Set (MDS) to examine changes in functional health. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-eight residents were assessed quarterly using the MDS over a 12 month period in a chronic care and long-term care institution. Physical functioning was conceptualized in two areas of physical limitations (e.g. bed mobility) and disability (e.g. dressing). RESULTS: Ten percent of the residents physical functioning improved. Gender, range of motion score at baseline, change in bed mobility and change in short term memory were strong independent predictors of changes in functional activity FL adjusted R2 = 0.23, F(5156) = 10.47, p<0.0001. The strongest independent predictors of change in ADL were gender, balance while standing at baseline, joint range of motion at baseline and change in depression scores, and weight loss, adjusted R2 = 0.24 , F(4157)= 13.38, p < 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: Most residents' physical functioning showed a deterioration or remained stable. Impairments which best explained changes in functioning such as range of motion or balance in standing are modifiable and should be targeted in interventions by nursing and rehabilitation staff.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations36
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207