FRAILTY IN THE NORTH WEST ADELAIDE HEALTH STUDY USING THE FRAILTY PHENOTYPE AND INDEX APPROACHES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the prevalence of frailty in community-dwelling adults aged 65+ from the North West Adelaide Health Study (n=945, 74.7 ± 6.4 years, 56.1% females). Frailty was operationalized using the frailty phenotype and frailty index (FI) approaches. The mean FI was 0.23 ± 0.15 and the prevalence of frailty based on the phenotype was 20.6%, while 50.3% of the cohort was classified as pre-frail. Levels of frailty were higher in the oldest old (aged 75+ FI 0.26 ± 0.15 and 31.7% frail vs aged 65-75 0.20 ± 0.13 and 11.5%), in females (FI 0.25 ± 0.15 and 26.2% vs males 0.20 ± 0.14 and 13.5%), those with a lower income (<$20k p.a. FI 0.25 ± 0.15 and 24.5% vs $60k+ p.a. 0.14 ± 0.10 and 5.9%), and a lower level of education (up to secondary level FI 0.23 ± 0.14 and 22.7% vs bachelor degree or higher 0.16 ± 0.14 and 6.7%). We are currently examining the ability of the both frailty tools to predict outcomes at four years.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".