MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2726158894 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.4835

CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE CLINICAL FRAILTY SCALE AND THE PICTORIAL FIT-FRAIL SCALE

2017· article· en· W2726158894 on OpenAlexaff
Olga Theou

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)MedicineGerontologyPresentation (obstetrics)PsychologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most health care professionals would agree on the importance of frailty assessment in clinical settings. Even so, there is no agreement on which frailty tool is feasible to implement in clinical settings and whether the same tool should be used across settings. In this presentation we will provide evidence about the clinical applications of the Clinical Frailty Scale and the Pictorial Fit-Frail scale. The Clinical Frailty Scale is based on the clinical evaluation of a patient’s status in the domains of mobility, energy, physical activity, and function and is now expanded to include nine levels from very fit to terminal ill. The Pictorial Fit-Frail scale recently developed to be simpler and easier to administer within clinical settings, measures levels of fitness to frailty using visual prompts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueInnovation in AgingSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207