Association of frailty in hospitalized and institutionalized elderly in the community-dwelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to investigate the association between frailty with hospitalization and institutionalization in a follow-up study of elderly residents. METHOD: the follow-up study was performed in 2008 and 2013 with elderly of both genders, aged 65 years and older who were living in the community-dwelling. The sampling procedure performed was probabilistic, with dual-stage clustering. In 2008, 515 elderly people were interviewed and, in 2013, 262. We used the socioeconomic and demographic data, self-reported morbidity, specific data of hospitalization and institutionalization. Frailty was measured by the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS), and functional capacity through the Functional Independence Measure. RESULTS: we found the mean gross EFS score was higher among resident elderly who were hospitalized and institutionalized and was statistically significant in both investigated years. CONCLUSION: the confirmation of association between frailty and hospitalization and institutionalization reinforces the importance of the subject, and highlights frailty as an important tool for risk estimates for these adverse events.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".