MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040413826 · doi:10.1017/s0959259802012236

Some mathematical models of frailty and their clinical implications

2002· article· en· W2040413826 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth Rockwood, Arnold B. Mitnitski, Chris MacKnight

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Clinical Gerontology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerontologyTerm (time)MedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frailty is a term that is used often, but commonly not defined precisely. As reviewed elsewhere most definitions share several features. Typically, older adults who are frail have a greater rate of dependence on others, so-called ‘loss of physiological reserve’ and multiple diseases. A dynamic component is often included (e.g. ‘loss of reserve’ and such synonyms as ‘unstable disability’ and ‘impaired homeostenosis’) and is manifest when, over time, patients respond less well to stress, or when those with given levels of frailty have higher rates of adverse outcomes. Still, the imprecision of the term frailty has led some to question its merit, and either to develop alternative means of classification or to stay with the concept of function and disability. Alternative methods of classification are either broadly or narrowly focussed.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.449
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.039 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations142
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in Clinical GerontologySame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207