Frailty in older adults with amnestic mild cognitive impairment as a result of Alzheimer's disease: A comparison of two models of frailty characterization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To verify the prevalence and presence of frailty markers, and their relationship to cognitive function among older adults with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI). METHODS: This was an observational study with transversal analyses. Older adults with aMCI as a result of Alzheimer's disease (n = 40) were compared with healthy controls (n = 26) at the Psychogeriatric Outpatient Unit, Institute and Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine of the University of São Paulo. All participants were submitted to a broad clinical and neuropsychological evaluation. Frailty was evaluated according to the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) phenotype and the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS). MCI was diagnosed by a multidisciplinary consensus according to the Petersen criteria and cerebrospinal fluid analysis for Alzheimer's disease biomarkers. RESULTS: The prevalence of frailty was significantly higher in the aMCI compared with the control group when it was assessed with the EFS (P = 0.047), but not with the CHS (P = 0.255). The prevalence of frailty varied on the criteria used (EFS 7.5%; CHS 30%). The fatigue variable in the CHS (P = 0.036), and the mood (P = 0.019) and functional independence (P = 0.042) variables from the EFS were significantly different between the groups. Visuospatial function (OR 2.405, P = 0.042) was associated with the CHS criteria. CONCLUSION: The identification of frailty features in aMCI appears to depend on the protocol used for evaluation. Visuospatial function showed a higher risk for frailty with the CHS. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2017; 17: 2096-2102.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".