Frailty in Older Adults with Mild Dementia: Dementia with Lewy Bodies and Alzheimer’s Disease
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
<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The aim of the study is to describe the frequency of frailty in people with a new diagnosis of mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This is a secondary analysis of the Dementia Study of Western Norway (Demvest). For this study, we analysed a sample of 186 patients, 116 with AD and 70 with DLB. Subjects were included at a time in which mild dementia was diagnosed according to consensus criteria after comprehensive standardized assessment. Frailty was evaluated retrospectively using a frailty index generated from existing data. The cut-off value used to classify an older adult as frail was 0.25. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The prevalence of frailty was 25.81% (<i>n</i> = 48). In the DLB group, 37.14% (<i>n</i> = 26) were classified as frail, compared to 18.97% (<i>n</i> = 22) of those with AD (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001). The adjusted multivariate analysis revealed an OR of 2.45 (1.15–5.23) for being frail in those with DLB when using AD as the reference group. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Frailty was higher than expected in both types of dementia. The prevalence of frailty was higher in those with DLB compared to AD. This new finding underscores the need for a multi-systems approach in both dementias, with a particular focus on DLB.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it