The Effectiveness of Personalisation on Health Outcomes of Older People: A Systematic Review
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
Purpose As people get older, they tend to have long-term conditions requiring health and social care intervention such as personalisation. Personalisation is person centred ensuring independence and control. To date, no systematic review has examined the effectiveness of personalisation. This review examined the effectiveness of personalisation in older people. Methods A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was undertaken. Databases searched included: Science Direct and Medline (PubMed) NHSEED and CINAHL. Inclusion criteria were older people living in their own homes receiving personalisation. Excluded were studies carried out in nursing homes. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for quality of assessment. Results Search yielded 151 published studies with titles and abstracts; 143 studies were excluded and eight included. Studies included showed health outcomes of older people receiving personalisation improved significantly. Conclusions Review found evidence of improvement in quality of life and mobility in older people.
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 | 0.034 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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