CLINICAL AND HEALTHCARE OUTCOMES OF ASSISTED LIVING RESIDENTS: A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assisted living (AL) has emerged as a popular residential care option for older adults in Canada. Similar to the U.S. experience, its introduction has raised concerns about regulatory oversight, eligibility criteria, staffing levels and quality of care. The Alberta Continuing Care Epidemiological Studies (ACCES) is the first prospective cohort study in Canada to examine AL residents’ health and social needs and healthcare outcomes. ACCES included 1,089 older (65+) residents from 59 AL residences and 1,000 residents from 54 nursing homes (NHs) across Alberta. In both settings, dementia was the most common diagnosis (58% AL, 71% NH). Despite being less impaired, AL residents exhibited an annual incidence of hospitalization 3-times higher than NH residents (38.9% vs. 13.7%). They also showed an annual incidence of NH placement of 18.3%. Key drivers of both outcomes included AL resident characteristics (health and social vulnerability) and residence factors (size, staffing levels and oversight).
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".