Quality of life of frail and institutionalized elderly Qualidade de vida do idoso fragilizado e institucionalizado
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: To assess the quality of life of institutionalized frail elderly.Methods: Cross-sectional study including 33 frail and pre-frail elderly, classified based on the Edmonton Frailty Scale. An instrument was applied to characterize the sociodemographic aspects and the World Health Organization Quality of Life for Older Persons to assess the quality of life.Results: The female sex was predominant (54.5%) and the mean age was 76.8 years (±9.3). A significant association was observed between the quality of life and all of its facets, and a strong relation was found between quality of life and “past, present and future activities” (r=0.715; p<0.001).Conclusion: The presence of frailty did not interfere directly in the elderly’s quality of life and showed a significant association with the motive for the institutionalization. Resumo Objetivo: Avaliar a qualidade de vida de idosos frageis institucionalizados.Metodos: Estudo transversal com a inclusao de 33 idosos frageis e pre-frageis, classificados a partir da Escala de Fragilidade de Edmonton. Foram aplicados: um instrumento para caracterizacao dos aspectos sociodemograficos e o instrumento
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".