MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122350312 · doi:10.4997/jrcpe.2014.204

Validity of an early risk score for older adults

2014· article· en· W2122350312 on OpenAlexafffund
PD St John, PR Montgomery

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of ManitobaIsland Health
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioGerontologyMultinomial logistic regressionConfidence intervalLogistic regressionInstitutionalisationDementiaDemographyRehabilitationPhysical therapyDiseasePsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine if a risk score developed in hospitalised older adults in the UK in 1962 is correlated with other measures of health and if this risk score predicts death or institutionalisation in community-living older adults. METHODS: A total of 1,735 older adults residing in the community in 1991 were followed over five years. We replicated the original risk index, a composite score of cognitive status, disability and continence. Other measures included age, gender, education, self-rated health (SRH), life satisfaction (LS) and frailty. Death and nursing home (NH) admission were determined five years later. RESULTS: The risk score was strongly associated with frailty, SRH and LS. The index predicted mortality and NH use: The adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) from multinomial logistic regression models was 0.74 (0.69, 0.79) for death and 0.74 (0.67, 0.83) for NH. CONCLUSIONS: A risk score devised to measure inpatient rehabilitation also predicts outcomes in community-dwelling older adults. Cognition and function predict a variety of adverse outcomes in a variety of settings in different historic eras.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of EdinburghSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207