MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2613088023 · doi:10.11648/j.cmr.20170603.15

Frailty and Loss of Rectus Femoris Muscle Thickness in Hospitalized Elderly Patients with Community-Acquired Pneumonia – A Case-Control Study

2017· article· en· W2613088023 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hirokazu Touge

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Medicine Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSarcopeniaPneumoniaCommunity-acquired pneumoniaGeriatricsGeriatric traumaInternal medicineEmergency medicinePoison controlInjury preventionInjury Severity Score

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frailty is at the core of geriatric syndromes that are characterized by multiple morbidities and mobility limitations. The purpose of this case-control study was to assess the frailty scale and muscle mass on the acute phase in hospitalized elderly patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Thirty-two elderly patients, aged 75 years or older, who were hospitalized with CAP, and 32 control patients hospitalized without CAP were recruited. Frailty scale and muscle mass were assessed using the Reported Edmonton Frail Scale (REFS) and rectus femoris (RF) thickness by ultrasound, respectively. There was a significant increase in the frequency of frailty among CAP patients (50%), compared with control patients (22%). Frailty scale correlated inversely with RF thickness and activity status. Based upon the piece-wise linear regression analysis between REFS and RF thickness decreased rapidly with the pre-frailty status among CAP patients. Elderly patients with CAP exhibit a significant impairment of activity status with frailty due to decreased thickness of RF prior to admission.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Medicine Research→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→