SP1-52 Prevalence of frailty in elders living in long-stay institutions in Brazil: correlations among four instruments of evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The term frailty characterises elders at higher risk for the occurrence of adverse health outcomes in situations of environmental stress. We still do not have an assessment instrument that could be considered as the gold standard for this condition. This study aims to estimate the prevalence of frailty in older individuals living at long-stay institutions, through different instruments, and to evaluate their performance in this setting. Methods This is a study with elderly residents of long-stay institutions in four Brazilian cities. The prevalence of frailty was estimated with four instruments: Fried phenotype (FP), Frailty Index based on Geriatric Status Scale (GSS-FI), Frail scale (FS) and Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS). The main characteristics of frail individuals according to each instrument were described. Correlations between the categories obtained with each instrument were analysed with Phi's correlation coefficient. Results These are preliminary results for 340 elders. The estimated prevalence of frailty was 54.3% for FP, 11.3% for GSS-FI, 12.1% for FS and 36.1% for EFS. The mean age of frail individuals varied from 72 to 75 years, depending on the assessment instrument. Frailty predominated in males (60.0–80.0%), 4 or less years of schooling (76.0–91.0%), single (44.0–59.0%) and time in the institution of up to 10 years (64.0–87.0%). The correlation coefficients varied from 0.1 to 0.4 (p<0.05). Conclusions Although most of the correlations between the instruments were moderate, frailty prevalence varied largely according to the instrument used to assess the condition. These differences are justified because of the different domains assessed by each instrument.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".