Frailty syndrome and functional disability among older adults with and without diabetes and foot ulcers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess frailty and disability among older adults with and without diabetes or foot ulcers. METHOD: A descriptive, comparative, controlled, multicentre study. Equal numbers of participants were allocated to three groups: (I) no diabetes/no foot ulcers (control), (II) diabetes but no foot ulcers or (III) diabetes and foot ulcers. Individuals with arterial, venous, pressure or mixed ulcers were not included. We collected data using three methods: a sociodemographic questionnaire and the validated Brazilian versions of the Edmonton Frail Scale and Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire 20-item Disability Scale (HAQ-20). RESULTS: A total of 150 older people took part in the study. The majority of participants were female (n=84, 56%), married (n=86, 57%) and did not exercise (n=94, 63%). Their age ranged from 67.7-71.5 years. In group I, 32 (64%) patients showed no evidence of frailty. In group II, 18 (36%) patients and 12 (24%) patients were 'apparently vulnerable' and 'mildly frail', respectively and in group III 21 (42%) patients and 15 (22%) patients had 'moderate' and 'severe frailty', respectively. The mean total HAQ-20 scores were 0.24, 0.52, and 2.44 for groups I, II, and III, respectively. Patients in group III reported significantly higher scores on all HAQ-20 categories compared with patients in groups I and II. CONCLUSION: Older patients with DFUs showed frailty and physical disability in activities of daily living.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".