A Longitudinal Study Examining the Change in Functional Independence Over Time in Elderly Individuals With a Functioning Kidney Transplant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Functional disability is defined as the need for assistance with self-care tasks. OBJECTIVE: To document changes in functional status over time among older prevalent renal transplant recipients. DESIGN: Single center, prospective, follow-up study. SETTING: Single center, tertiary care transplant center. PATIENTS: Patients, with a functioning kidney transplant, aged 65 years or older who underwent assessment of functional status approximately 12 months previously. MEASUREMENTS: Validated tools used included Barthel Index, the Lawton-Brody Scale of Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, the Timed Up and Go test, the Veterans Specific Activity Questionnaire, the Mini-Cog, and dynamometer handgrip strength. METHODS: Outpatient assessment by a trained observer. RESULTS: Of the 82 patients previously studied, 64 (78%) patients participated in the follow-up study (mean age 70.5 ± 4.4 years, 58% male, 55% diabetic). Among those completing functional status measures, 32 (50%) had functional disability at baseline. Over the 1-year period, 11 (17%) of these patients experienced progressive functional decline, 6 (9%) exhibited no change, and 15 (23%) had functional recovery. Eleven patients (17%) initially independent, developed new-onset disability. One of the strongest predictors of progressive functional decline was having 1 or more falls in the previous year. LIMITATIONS: Assessments were performed only on 2 occasions separated by approximately 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Fluctuations in disability states are common among older adults living with renal transplants. Episodes of functional disability may place individuals at higher risk of persistent and/or progressive disability.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".