Impact of familiar and unfamiliar settings on cooking task assessments in frail older adults with poor and preserved executive functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospitalized frail older patients are usually assessed for their ability to perform some daily living activities in a clinical setting prior to discharge. However, assessments that take place in this unfamiliar environment might not be as representative of their functional performance as assessments at home. This may be related to a decline in some cognitive components, such as executive functions (EF), which enable one to cope with new environments. This study thus aims to compare cooking task performance in familiar and unfamiliar settings in a population of frail older adults with poor and preserved EF. METHODS: Thirty-seven frail older adults were assigned to one of two groups: poor EF or preserved EF. Participants performed two cooking tasks in familiar and unfamiliar settings, using a counterbalanced design. Their performance was assessed with a reliable tool based on observation of motor and process skills (Assessment of Motor and Process Skills). RESULTS: Thirty-three participants were retained for analysis. They demonstrated significantly better motor skills (F = 5.536; p = 0.025) and process skills (F = 8.149; p = 0.008) in the familiar setting. The difference between settings was particularly marked for process skills in participants with poor EF (F = 16.920; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that a home setting may be preferable for a more accurate assessment of cooking task performance in frail older adults, especially those with poor EF. These findings highlight the risk of underestimating frail older adults' performance when assessed in an unfamiliar setting (e.g. hospital), which could lead to inefficient allocation of home care services.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".