MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979222282 · doi:10.1007/s12603-019-1273-z

Physical Frailty: ICFSR International Clinical Practice Guidelines for Identification and Management

2019· article· en· W2979222282 on OpenAlexaff
Elsa Dent, John E. Morley, Alfonso J. Cruz‐Jentoft, Linda J. Woodhouse, Leocadio Rodríguez‐Mañas, Linda P. Fried, Jean Woo, Iván Aprahamian, Angela M. Sanford, J. Lundy, Francesco Landi, John Beilby, Finbarr C. Martin, Jürgen M. Bauer, Luigi Ferrucci, Reshma Aziz Merchant, Birong Dong, Hidenori Arai, Emiel O. Hoogendijk, Chang Won Won, Angela Marie Abbatecola, Tommy Cederholm, Timo Strandberg, Luis Miguel Gutiérrez‐Robledo, Leon Flicker, Shalender Bhasin, Mylène Aubertin‐Leheudre, Heike A. Bischoff‐Ferrari, Jack M. Guralnik, John Muscedere, M. Pahor, Jorge G. Ruiz, Ahmed Negm, Jean‐Yves Reginster, Debra L. Waters, Bruno Vellas

Bibliographic record

VenueThe journal of nutrition health & aging · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityQueen's UniversityUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversity of Alberta
FundersFrench Dairy Interbranch OrganizationMylanRadius HealthLes Laboratories Pierre Fabre
KeywordsMedicineContext (archaeology)PolypharmacySarcopeniaGeriatricsGerontologyIntensive care medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The task force of the International Conference of Frailty and Sarcopenia Research (ICFSR) developed these clinical practice guidelines to overview the current evidence-base and to provide recommendations for the identification and management of frailty in older adults. METHODS: These recommendations were formed using the GRADE approach, which ranked the strength and certainty (quality) of the supporting evidence behind each recommendation. Where the evidence-base was limited or of low quality, Consensus Based Recommendations (CBRs) were formulated. The recommendations focus on the clinical and practical aspects of care for older people with frailty, and promote person-centred care. Recommendations for Screening and Assessment: The task force recommends that health practitioners case identify/screen all older adults for frailty using a validated instrument suitable for the specific setting or context (strong recommendation). Ideally, the screening instrument should exclude disability as part of the screening process. For individuals screened as positive for frailty, a more comprehensive clinical assessment should be performed to identify signs and underlying mechanisms of frailty (strong recommendation). Recommendations for Management: A comprehensive care plan for frailty should address polypharmacy (whether rational or nonrational), the management of sarcopenia, the treatable causes of weight loss, and the causes of exhaustion (depression, anaemia, hypotension, hypothyroidism, and B12 deficiency) (strong recommendation). All persons with frailty should receive social support as needed to address unmet needs and encourage adherence to a comprehensive care plan (strong recommendation). First-line therapy for the management of frailty should include a multi-component physical activity programme with a resistance-based training component (strong recommendation). Protein/caloric supplementation is recommended when weight loss or undernutrition are present (conditional recommendation). No recommendation was given for systematic additional therapies such as cognitive therapy, problem-solving therapy, vitamin D supplementation, and hormone-based treatment. Pharmacological treatment as presently available is not recommended therapy for the treatment of frailty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.010
Bibliometrics0.0140.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0080.007
Research integrity0.0120.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.012

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.

Opus teacher head0.142
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.363 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1,017
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe journal of nutrition health & agingSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207