Three-month follow up of patients discharged from a geriatric day hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if mobility and functional status of patients attending a geriatric day hospital are maintained three months after discharge. DESIGN: Prospective, before-after, quasi-experimental design. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling elderly referred for comprehensive geriatric assessment and multidisciplinary management. METHODS: All patients who attended a geriatric day hospital for at least 5 visits and discharged between 1 August, 1999 and 1 March, 2000 were eligible (n = 41). Measurements were performed at admission, discharge and three months post-discharge. Data were analyzed using one way repeated measures ANOVA for parametric data and the Friedman-Chi square test for non-parametric data. OUTCOME MEASURES: Barthel Index, Timed Up and Go Test, Berg Balance Scale, Mini-Mental Status Examination, Geriatric Depression Scale. RESULTS: From admission to discharge, significant improvements were seen in Timed Up and Go Test, Berg Balance Scale, and Geriatric Depression Scale (all P<or=0.002). From discharge to 3 months post-discharge, the Timed Up and Go Test, Berg Balance Scale and Mini-Mental Status Examination declined (all P<0.001) with no significant change in Barthel Index or Geriatric Depression Scale. From admission to 3 months post-discharge, Mini-Mental Status Examination scores declined (p=0.002) and Geriatric Depression Scale scores improved (p=0.007), with all other outcomes unchanged. CONCLUSION: No sustained improvements in mobility or functional status were seen at 3 months following discharge from a geriatric day hospital. Further studies exploring methods to delay progressive deterioration in multiple domains are necessary.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".