A Geriatric Day Hospital: Who Improves the Most?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the changes in some bio-psychosocial variables (functional independence, nutritional risk, pain, balance and walking, grip strength, general well-being, psychiatric profile, perception of social support, leisure satisfaction, and caregivers' feeling of burden) in four categories of clients during their program at a geriatric day hospital (GDH). The study also evaluated whether or not improvements, if any, were maintained 3 months after discharge. One-hundred-and-fifty-one people, categorized by primary reason for admission, were assessed at the GDH with reliable and valid tools, at admission and at discharge. Three months after discharge, they were reassessed with the same tools. Overall, two categories of clients, stroke / neurological diseases and musculoskeletal disorders / amputations, improved the most. For the gait disorders and falls group, only the functional independence score improved, but not at a clinically significant level. Finally, clients in the cognitive function disorders / psychopathologies group improved the most on their well-being scores and caregivers' burden decreased the most. All gains were maintained up to 3 months after discharge, except for leisure satisfaction. With the exception of clients who attended the GDH because of gait disorders and falls, the improvements and maintenance achieved in each category occurred in the domains where improvement had been hoped for, because of the particular disabilities in question and because of the nature of the GDH services offered.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".