Frailty Syndrome: A Risk Factor Associated With Violence in Older Adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze the association between frailty syndrome as a risk factor associated with violence in older adults. METHOD: A cross-sectional study, carried out with older adults, in an emergency care unit of a northeastern Brazilian city was conducted. Three instruments were used: a form for sample characterization (i.e., demographics) and two more scales, namely, the Edmonton Frail Scale and the Hwalek-Sengstock Elder Abuse Screening Test. The results were analyzed through descriptive and inferential statistics, using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests, Spearman's correlation test, and simple logistic regression. RESULTS: The sample included 146 older adults who were over 70 years old (56.6%), male (56.2%), and at risk of violence (69.86%). Among the categorical variables, there was an association between risk and being of a higher age (80.7%, p < 0.001), unemployed (73.7%, p < 0.05), having more than six children (80.8%, p < 0.05), and frail older adults (88.1%, p < 0.001). There was a correlation (p < 0.05) between the numerical variables of the scales of violence and frailty, with a coefficient of 0.40. The simple logistic regression model showed that frailty syndrome increases the risk of violence among older adults. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that frailty is a factor that increases the occurrence of risk of violence and provides information to guide nursing action in the field of forensic sciences.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it