MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Towards a unified and standardized definition of the frailty phenotype

2016· article· en· W2523052240 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cláudia Kimie Suemoto

Bibliographic record

VenueSao Paulo Medical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrailty IndexConfusionPsychosocialGerontologyCognitionPsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite current advances in defining frailty, significant confusion remains, mainly because of multiple definitions for frailty and lack of standardized measurements. In addition to Fried’s definition of the frailty phenotype, other definitions have been proposed. The Frailty Index was developed using data from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging and took into consider-ation the number of deficits over time (i.e. disability, diseases, physical and cognitive impair-ments, psychosocial risk factors and geriatric syndromes).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.262 · 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.

Study designOther design
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSao Paulo Medical JournalSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207