Reproducibility of the Brazilian version of the Edmonton Frail Scale for elderly living in the community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to verify the inter and intra-rater reproducibility of the Brazilian adapted version of the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) in an elderly group of residents. METHOD: in order to test the inter-rater reproducibility, two assessments were independently conducted by two researchers on the same day but at different times, in a sample of 103 elderly. Concerning the intra-rater reproducibility, the instrument was administered to 83 elderly (80.6% of the initial sample) by the same researcher in a time gap of 15 days between the two assessments. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: in relation to the inter-rater test, the Kappa was 0.81 (CI 0.61-1.00) and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) corresponded to 0.87 (CI 0.82-0.91, p<0.001). In relation to the intra-rater test, the Kappa was 0.83 (CI 0.72-0.94) and the ICC 0.87 (CI 0.81-1.00, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: the results show that the EFS is reliable and can be used as a tool to improve geriatric nursing care in Brazil.
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 | 0.020 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".