How best to support individuals with <scp>IDD</scp> as they become frail: Development of a consensus statement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While higher rates and earlier onset of frailty have been reported among adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), research on how best to support these individuals is lacking. METHOD: An international consultation relied on three consensus building methods: the Nominal Group Technique, an NIH consensus conference approach, and a Delphi survey. RESULTS: There is agreement that person-centered planning and aging in place should be guiding principles. Frailty must be considered earlier than in the general population with the recognition that improvement and maintenance are viable goals. Intersectoral collaboration is needed to coordinate assessments and actions. Safety and planning for the future are important planning considerations, as are the needs of caregivers. Ongoing research is needed. CONCLUSION: The statement offers guidance to respond to frailty among adults with IDD and fosters ongoing exchange internationally on best practice. As new evidence emerges, the statement should be revisited and revised.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 it