MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801637153 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v8n9p77

Sarcopenia-A baby boomers dilemma for nurse practitioners to discover, diagnose, and treat

2018· article· en· W2801637153 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kelley L. Jackson, Dennis Hunt, Deborah Chapa, Sareen S. Gropper

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSarcopeniaMedicineIntervention (counseling)Baby boomersDilemmaNurse practitionersAdverse effectDiseasePhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialNursingIntensive care medicineHealth careInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Sarcopenia is a disease of low skeletal muscle mass and strength that occurs with aging. It is most commonly seen in individuals aged 50 years and over. Nurse practitioners can take a proactive approach to the understanding and screening of this disease in attempts to prolong its onset or to treat the condition before it leads to additional adverse consequences. Methods: A comprehensive review of the literature, including evidence-based literature from peer-reviewed articles, including randomized controlled trials, was conducted.Results: This review of the literature indicated patients can benefit greatly from nurse practitioner’s awareness and intervention by screening for sarcopenia as well as offering appropriate education and treatment to their patients. Once a diagnosis is reached, the nurse practitioner can then collaborate with other disciplines such as nutrition, medicine, exercise physiology and/or physical therapy to develop an intervention strategy that can treat or prevent this condition before it leads to decreased independence, early onset disability and decreased quality of life, among other adverse health outcomes.Conclusions: There is a call to action on the part of nurse practitioners in efforts to prevent and/or slow the onset of age-related sarcopenia and its adverse consequences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.012
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0120.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.396 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207