Données de validité en efficacité et reproductibilité des échelles de fragilité dans la population générale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Numerous tools were created in order to detect frail people. A systematic literature review achieved in 2015 has extracted 71 frailty scales published in health sciences journals. There were two major approaches of frailty: a biological frailty phenotype and a theory of deficit accumulation. The aim of this study was to found validity and reproducibility data for the general population among those 71 scales.METHOD: An additional bibliography research has been undertaken with reproducibility as primary endpoint. Exclusion criteria were: non representative sample of the general population, off topic, unlisted scale in the systematic review.RESULTS: Ten scales have been retained: Frailty Phenotype, Clinical Frailty Scale, Groningen Frailty Indicator, Edmonton Frailty Scale, Triage Risk Screening Tool, Share Frailty Phenotype, Trilburg Frailty Indicator, 3MS, Mini Nutritional Assessment et Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form. reproducibility data were acceptable to excellent for 8 scales. The validity data were varied, measurements were made at different times and with different samples.CONCLUSION: It was difficult to compare the validity data because of their diversity. A future study should be undertaken by an expert group to select the most reliable, reproducible and feasible tool.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.164 | 0.444 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".