THE EFFECTS OF FRAILTY, POLYPHARMACY, AND COGNITION ON HEALTH OUTCOMES: A STUDY ON INTERRAI RESIDENTIAL CARE DATA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Frailty Index (FI), polypharmacy and cognition status are significant health concerns in older adults. We conducted this study to investigate the interplay of frailty, polypharmacy, and cognition, in determining health outcomes. InterRAI Residential Care (RAI-RC MDS2.0) data were retrieved from residential care homes in Surrey, BC, Canada. Older residents (65+ years) who had RAI-RC records between 2016 and 2018 were used in the analysis (n=976). A deficit accumulation-based FI was generated using 36 variables. Information on polypharmacy and cognition were obtained by accounting the total number of medications and the cognitive performance scale. Information on falls, emergency visits, and mortality were followed. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the effects of these variables on different outcomes. The FI showed a near Gaussian distribution (median= 0.370 mean= 0.372 SD= 0.143), and increased linearly with age on a logarithm scale (R=0.75, p<0.001). Residents with cognitive impairment showed a higher level of the FI (KW= 863.3, p<0.001). A higher FI was associated with an increased risk of death (HR=15.2 p=0.006) and emergency visits (HR=2.72 p=0.048), adjusting for age, sex, medications, and education levels. Frailty, polypharmacy, and cognition levels are associated and have interactive effects on health outcomes. Ongoing research is to validate the findings with large samples in different health settings, and to understand the underlying processes of the effect. The close relationships between frailty, polypharmacy, and cognition with health outcomes call for effective integrated strategies for healthcare of older adults with multiple complex health problems.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".