MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095460977 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afv043

What are frailty instruments for?

2015· review· en· W2095460977 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth Rockwood, Olga Theou, A. Mitnitski

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIdentification (biology)GerontologyTest (biology)Risk assessmentMEDLINEComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frailty is measured to understand its nature and biology, to aid diagnosis and care planning, to measure outcomes and to stratify risk. Such goals oblige two types of frailty measures - for screening and for assessment - and recognition that not all measures will serve all purposes. When the goal is broad identification of people at risk, a dichotomised approach (frailty is present or absent ) is appropriate. If, however, the degree of risk varies, strategies to test grades of frailty will be required. Frailty measures should be implemented and evaluated in relation to the goal for their use.

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)0.000
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations123
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207