Uso de tecnologías de asistencia y fragilidad en adultos mayores de 80 años y más
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To identify and analyze the association between the use of assisting technologies and the frailty in aged 80 years and older. Method: This is a quantitative, descriptive and transversal study conducted in Ribeirão Preto, Brazil, with a sample of 144 aged 80 years and older of both sexes and living in the community. Data were gathered through the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS), and the Assisting Technology Instrument. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Fisher’s exact test at a significant level of p < 0.05. Results: A prevalence of females, widowed, and living alone was observed. From those interviewed, 77.4% used some assisting technology, mainly lenses and supporting banisters. Concerning frailty assessment, 23.6% were considered as mild, 13.1% as moderate, and 7.8% as severe. A statistically significant association with the use of assisting technologies such as wheel chairs, banisters, and walkers was verified at all frailty levels. Conclusion: The use of assisting technologies can help elder adults achieve a more functional independence and autonomy in their daily life activities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 it