Toileting Disability in Older People Residing in Long-term Care or Assisted Living Facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For purposes of this review, we defined toileting disability as a result of practices, procedures, or conditions that result in an individual requiring assistance using the bathroom. This scoping review synthesizes existing knowledge of extrinsic and/or intrinsic factors that might lead to or be associated with toileting disability and identified knowledge gaps related to toileting disability in older adults residing in long-term care or assisted living facilities. A search of 9 electronic databases and the gray literature identified 3613 articles. After exclusions and screening of the full text of 71 articles, 7 remaining eligible articles mapped research activity and identified knowledge gaps in this area. Only 1 study used toileting disability as the primary outcome; it was present in 15% of older adults without dementia living in long term-care facilities (a subgroup that comprised 34% of all residents). The other 6 articles examined factors and treatment of overall activities of daily living (ADL) performance as their primary outcome; in these, toileting disability was added to other difficulties, yielding a summary ADL outcome score. No study reported the incidence, distribution, or factors that affect toileting disability in long-term care; findings of this scoping review suggest a rich research agenda for future investigation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".