FRAILTY IN OLDER ADULTS (>50 YEARS) LIVING WITH HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS (HIV). A CARE PROPOSAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the proposed study is to estimate the period prevalence of frailty using two different approaches in a cohort of HIV patients engaged in care at the Southern Alberta Clinic. This population differs from previous studies of frailty in HIV by the inclusion of a broad and heterogeneous patient population. Another novel element will be the use of a second frailty measure, the Clinical Frailty Scale, which is widely used in care settings. Patients will be grouped by sex and age intervals (50–54, 55–59, 60–64, 65–69 and over 70 years) in order to determine the age-related period prevalence of frailty within the clinic population and to identify potential predictive variables for the development of frailty in PLWHA, such as age, sex, duration of known HIV infection, presence or absence of AIDS, specific age-related co-morbidity, multi-morbidity (defined as 2 or more of these co morbidities), nadir CD4 count, duration of unsuppressed viremia and exposure to both antiviral therapy (ART) and individual agents. This data is routinely collected as part of care and is readily available through the SAC database. The period prevalence of frailty in the study population will be compared to published data on similarly aged populations as well as in older populations (e.g., older adults in the Canadian Study of Health and Aging). By the time of the International Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics 21st World Congress, in 2017, our study group anticipates having preliminary results from our study, including period prevelence of frailty, using two different frailty scales, as well as preliminary evaluation of potential risk factors for frailty, Potential long-term implications of this research project range from better care of aging PLWHA to improved planning for future clinic and societal resources to deal with the needs of HIV-infected patients.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".