How’s Your Health at Home: Frail Homebound Patients Reported Health Experience and Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ Pour notre sondage, nous avons utilisé une méthodologie mixte basée sur le Web (How’s Your Health – Frail) pour examiner la santé des adultes fragiles (78% âgés de 80 ans et plus) inscrits à un programme de soins primaires à domicile à Vancouver, au Canada. Soixante pour cent des répondants admissibles ont participé, représentant plus d’un quart (92/350, 26,2%) de tous les individus qui reçoivent le service. Malgré des niveaux élevés de co-morbidité et de dépendance fonctionnelle, 50% ont jugé leur santé aussi bonne, très bonne ou excellente. Les ratios de cotes ajustés pour l’auto-évaluation de sa santé positive étaient de 7,50, 95 pour cent d’intervalle de confiance (IC) [1,09, 51,81] et 4,85, 95% CI [1,02, 22,95] pour l’absence de symptômes gênants et le pouvoir de parler à la famille ou amis, respectivement. Des réponses narratives aux questions sur la fin de vie et la vie avec une maladie sont également décrites. Les résultats suggèrent que l’accent mis sur la gestion des symptômes, et le soutien des contacts sociaux, peut améliorer la santé des personnes âgées fragiles.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".