Uso de tecnologías de asistencia y fragilidad en adultos mayores de 80 años y más
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.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".