Prevalência e fatores associados à fragilidade em idosos atendidos em um ambulatório de especialidades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estudo transversal desenvolvido com 374 idosos de um hospital de ensino da região dos Campos Gerais que buscou identificar a prevalência e fatores associados à fragilidade em idosos de um ambulatório de especialidades médicas. A coleta de dados compreendeu entrevista, Mini Exame do Estado Mental e Escala de Fragilidade de Edmonton. Realizou-se análise bivariada e múltipla por meio de regressão de Poisson com os respectivos intervalos de confiança de 95% e nível de significância de p≤0,05. A prevalência de fragilidade foi de 40,1%, com associação significativa às variáveis sexo feminino (p=0,002), baixa escolaridade (p=0,020), presença de doença(s) autorreferida(s) (p=0,006), medicamentos (p=0,001), perda de urina (p=0,001), quedas (p=0,001) e à hospitalização (p=0,001). A prevalência de fragilidade identificada foi discretamente inferior à constatada em estudo de um centro de referência e superior a idosos da comunidade, com fatores sociodemográficos e clínicos associados. Requerendo olhar atento dos profissionais da saúde acerca deste perfil.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".