MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315956156 · doi:10.1352/1934-9556-54.2.123

Frailty as a Predictor of Institutionalization Among Adults With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

2016· article· en· W2315956156 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueIntellectual and developmental disabilities · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstitutionalisationGerontologyCohortIntellectual disabilityLong-term careCohort studyPopulationRetrospective cohort studyMedicinePsychologyPsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) frequently become frail earlier than the general population, resulting in higher care needs. This population is at risk for institutionalization, or re-institutionalization, into long-term care (LTC). Using a retrospective cohort design to follow 3,034 individuals (18-99 years) living in Ontario, Canada, and assessed with the Resident Assessment Instrument-Home Care, individuals were characterized with a frailty index (FI) for persons with IDD. Survival analyses determined differences in rates of admission to LTC and survival in the community. Frail individuals had greater rates of admission than non-frail individuals, adjusted HR = 2.19, 95% CI [1.81, 2.64]. The FI predicts institutionalization.

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.

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)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.220 · 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