Fragilidade, perfil e cognição de idosos residentes em área de alta vulnerabilidade social
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to associate frailty with sociodemographic profile and cognition of elderly people living in highly socially vulnerable contexts registered at a Social Assistance Referral Centers in a city of inland São Paulo. This is a cross-sectional and quantitative study with 48 elderly. Data was collected with a sociodemographic interview, the Edmonton Frail Scale and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and was analyzed with the Jonckheere-Terpstra test, Spearman's correlation and logistic regression (α = 5.0%). This study was approved under Opinion Nº 72182. Of the 48 elderly interviewed, 33.4% were non-frail, 20.8% were apparently vulnerable and 45.8% were frail at some level (mild, moderate or severe). Women (OR = 4.64) and nonwhites (OR = 3.99) were more likely of being frail. The realms with the greatest influence in the determination of frailty were cognition, independence and functional performance, general health and mood, although gender (p = 0.0373) and ethnicity (p = 0.0284) had a significant association. Worth highlighting is that considering the frailty profile of the elderly warrants the development of specific care strategies for this segment of the population in a vulnerable area, preventing futures complications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".