MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606574756 · doi:10.5770/cgj.20.240

A Scoping Review of Frailty and Acute Care in Middle-Aged and Older Individuals with Recommendations for Future Research

2017· review· en· W2606574756 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
David B. Hogan, Colleen J. Maxwell, Jonathan Afilalo, Rakesh C. Arora, Sean M. Bagshaw, Jenny Basran, Howard Bergman, Susan E. Bronskill, Caitlin Carter, Elijah Dixon, Brenda R. Hemmelgarn, Kenneth Madden, Arnold Mitnitski, Darryl Rolfson, Henry T. Stelfox, Helen Tam‐Tham, Hannah Wunsch

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geriatrics Journal · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of ManitobaInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of CalgaryMcGill UniversityUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineStressorVulnerability (computing)GerontologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is general agreement that frailty is a state of heightened vulnerability to stressors arising from impairments in multiple systems leading to declines in homeostatic reserve and resiliency, but unresolved issues persist about its detection, underlying pathophysiology, and relationship with aging, disability, and multimorbidity. A particularly challenging area is the relationship between frailty and hospitalization. Based on the deliberations of a 2014 Canadian expert consultation meeting and a scoping review of the relevant literature between 2005 and 2015, this discussion paper presents a review of the current state of knowledge on frailty in the acute care setting, including its prevalence and ability to both predict the occurrence and outcomes of hospitalization. The examination of the available evidence highlighted a number of specific clinical and research topics requiring additional study. We conclude with a series of consensus recommendations regarding future research priorities in this important area.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0190.022
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations131
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geriatrics JournalSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207