Investigation on the use and acceptability of the Edmonton Frail Scale in a rural primary care setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated GP acceptance and practical application of the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) in a rural primary care practice. Primary health care providers identify patients at risk of negative health outcomes and hospitalisation and then provide appropriate interventions. The annual ‘75+ health assessment’ 75+HA is a part of the ‘Enhanced Primary Care’ package introduced in 1999 by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care as a financial incentive for GPs to identify and offer intervention for medical conditions and potential risk factors for poor health in people aged 75 years and over. However, the 75+HA has a number of limitations: it has not been updated,1 takes between 30 and 60 min to complete, and from 1999 to 2010, only 20% of age‐eligible adults actually had the 75+HA.2 An alternative assessment of frailty might identify at‐risk patients earlier, consume less practitioner time and have better uptake than the 75+HA. Frailty is related to the ageing process, with an accelerated decline in the ability of bodily systems to respond to and recover from physical insult.3 Internationally, assessment of frailty in older patients by primary care physicians is government‐funded4, 5 to identify patients at risk of poor health outcomes and future hospitalisation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".