How best to support individuals with <scp>IDD</scp> as they become frail: Development of a consensus statement
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.
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 | 0.154 | 0.162 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| 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 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".