The C5-75 Program: Meeting the Need for Efficient, Pragmatic Frailty Screening and Management in Primary Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Case-Finding for Complex Chronic Conditions in Seniors 75+ (C5-75) is a systematic approach to identify frailty using gait speed and hand-grip strength and to screen for co-morbid conditions. We identified the C5-75 features offering the highest yield for identifying frailty and to streamline the screening program. Analyses included 1,948 C5-75 assessments completed from 2013 to 2018. Age 85 or older, less than regular physical activity, and more than two falls in the previous six months had the strongest associations with frailty. Exempting patients under 85 who reported regular physical activity and less than two falls excluded 39.1 per cent of the cohort while maintaining a sensitivity of 95.2 per cent and a negative predictive value of 99.4 per cent for frailty. These findings provide insight into optimizing screening for frailty, making it more feasible to implement and to identify co-existing conditions that may contribute to or be affected by 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 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 | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".