MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2980803590 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2019.06.1130

P1‐525: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF‐RATED HEALTH AND FRAILTY SYNDROME IN ELDERLY WITH AND WITHOUT COGNITIVE DEFICIT

2019· article· en· W2980803590 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amanda Azevedo Fumagalli, Giovana Carolina Láo Rosa, Ivan S. Vivas, Sheila de Melo Borges

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionCognitive deficitGerontologyMedicinePopulationPsychologyCognitive impairmentPsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-rated health is an important indicator for the subjective evaluation of the individual's well-being and its relation with reality. The frail elderly could be subject to living in conditions which could culminate in a negative self-rated of their health, and the presence of cognitive deficit might alter this perception and objectivity. The objective of the present study was to verify the relationship between self-rated health status and the frailty syndrome among elderly with and without cognitive deficit. A cross-sectional study evaluated 300 older people attended to by the Basic Health Units of the city of Santos, São Paulo, Brazil. According to the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score established by schooling level for Brazilian population, the elderly people were divided in two groups: Group One (G1) - elderly without cognitive deficit (n=157); and Group Two (G2) - elderly with cognitive deficit (n=143). For evaluation of the frailty syndrome, we used the Edmonton Functional Scale (EFS), evaluated by nine domains: cognition, general health, functional independence, social support, medication use, nutrition, humor, continence and functional performance, investigated by 11 items. Its maximum score is 17, which is the maximum level of frailty. In addition, the self-rated health was assessed through the question “In general, how do you evaluate your health?”, with five alternatives of answer: very good, good, moderate, poor, or very poor. According to the Mann-Whitney test, the age variable showed a significant difference between groups (G2=74.0±7.9 and G1: 71.6±7.3 years old; P=.005). The other variables did not show a significant difference between groups (gender, EFS, schooling level and practice of physical activity). The Spearman's correlation test showed relation between the answers of self-rated health and EFS in G1 (r=−0.53: P<.001) and G2 (r=−0.39: P<.001). The results indicate that the self-rated health status is related to the frailty syndrome in both groups. That is, the better the perception of the elderly about their health, the lower the index of frailty, being this relation observed independent of the presence or not of cognitive deficit evaluated by a screening test only.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→