From premise to practice: Applicability of a consensus statement for supporting adults with IDD who are frail
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Study of frailty in adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) is relatively new. To build the body of literature, an international consensus statement on how to support adults with IDD as they become frail was developed based on fictional cases. This study examined the face validity and applicability of the consensus statement to real-world care planning. METHOD: Twenty-three care plans for adults with IDD who were classified along the frailty continuum were reviewed. Documented goals, actions and outcomes were coded according to the consensus statement's principles and recommendations. RESULTS: The recommendations 'Improvement and maintenance are viable goals' and 'Intersectoral collaboration is needed' were documented the most often. Attention to the needs of formal and informal caregivers was mentioned the least often in care plans. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides some support for the face validity of the consensus statement and its applicability to supporting adults with IDD who are frail.
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 | 0.380 | 0.568 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".