MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Medical Comorbidity and Rehabilitation Efficiency in Geriatric Inpatients

2001· article· en· W2063378310 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Louise Patrick, Frank Knoefel, Peter Gaskowski, Daniel Rexroth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComorbidityRehabilitationMedicineGeriatric rehabilitationGeriatric Depression ScaleFunctional Independence MeasurePhysical therapyDepression (economics)PsychiatryCognitionDepressive symptoms

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To measure and describe medical comorbidity in geriatric rehabilitation patients and investigate its relationship to rehabilitation efficiency. DESIGN: Prospective, multivariate, within-subject design. SETTING: The Geriatric Rehabilitation inpatient unit of the SCO Health Service in Ottawa, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred ten patients, with a mean age of 82 years. MEASUREMENTS: The rehabilitation efficiency ratio, based on gains in functional status achieved with rehabilitation treatment, and the length of stay were computed for all patients. Values were regressed on the scores of the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS), the Mini-Mental State Examination, and the Geriatric Depression Scale to establish predictive power. RESULTS: The findings suggest that geriatric rehabilitation patients experience considerable medical comorbidity. Sixty percent of patients had impairments across six of the 13 dimensions of the CIRS, whereas 36% of patients had impairments across 11 of the 13 dimensions. In addition, medical comorbidity was negatively related to rehabilitation efficiency. This relationship was significant even after controlling for age, cognitive status, depressive symptoms, and functional independence status at admission. CONCLUSION: Medical comorbidity was a significant predictor of rehabilitation efficiency in geriatric patients. Comorbidity scores >5 were prognostic of poorer rehabilitation outcomes and can serve as an empirical guide in estimating a patient's suitability for rehabilitation. Medical comorbidity predicted both the overall functional change achieved with retabilitation (Functional Independence Measure gains) and the rate at with which those gains were reached (rehabilitation efficiency ratio).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations153
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietySame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207