Frailty in nursing home residents: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives and Review questions: The overall research objective of this scoping review is to determine the current evidence on frailty in nursing homes. The objectives of the scoping review are to map the following, as reported in international literature: Fraily tools used in studies on nursing home residents. Prevalence of frailty in nursing home residents. Geriatric syndromes (e.g. cognitive impairment, delirium, depression, falls, incontinence, malnutrition and dizziness) associated with frailty in nursing home residents. Other types of adverse outcomes related to frailty reported. Diverse treatment modalities of frailty in nursing home residents. The questions for the scoping review are: What frailty diagnostic tools have been reported in international literature that have been used in studies on nursing home residents? What prevalence rates of frailty in nursing home residents have been reported in the literature? What types of geriatric syndromes have been reported in the literature as being associated with frailty? What other types of adverse outcomes related to frailty have been reported in the literature? What treatment modalities for frailty have been reported in the literature?
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 | 0.075 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.010 |
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".