MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3110824645 · doi:10.1002/alz.041974

Prevalence of cognitive frailty and associations with other frailty domains in a Spanish community‐dwelling sample

2020· article· en· W3110824645 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Façal, María Campos‐Magdaleno, Esparanza Navarro‐Pardo, Arturo X. Pereiro

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionDementiaGerontologyMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitive impairmentWeaknessMedicinePsychologyCognitive declinePsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The concept of cognitive frailty has been defined as the simultaneous presence of frailty and mild cognitive impairment in absence of dementia, although recent approaches has considered cognitive frailty as a distinct construct and has taken into account different domains of physical frailty (De Roeck et al., 2020). The aim of the present study is to analyze the prevalence of cognitive frailty in groups with different degrees of cognitive impairment. Method A total of 285 community‐dwelling middle‐age and older adults, aged >50 years, from Galicia and Valencia (northwest and southeast of Spain respectively) participated. Cognitive function was assessed using MoCA test, and cognitive complaints with the Spanish version of the Everyday Memory Questionnaire. Participants were classified as objective cognitively impaired, cognitively unimpaired, and cognitively unimpaired with subjective cognitive complaints. Physical frailty criteria included: a) unintentional weight loss or lack of appetite in the last three months; b) self‐reported exhaustion, measured with the General Health Questionnaire‐12 question about affective state; c) weakness, measured with a dynamometer to determine handgrip strength; d) slow walking speed, measured through a timed‐up and go task; and e) low physical activity, measured with the reduced Spanish version of the Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire (VREM). Participants were classified as robust if they met none of the criteria, pre‐frail if they met 1 or 2 criteria, and frail if they met 3 or more criteria, corrected by gender and age. Results The prevalence of frailty was 2.5% in the cognitively unimpaired group, 12.2% in the group with cognitive complaints, and 9.6% in the group with objective cognitive impairment (chi‐square=18.37;p<0.01) (Table 1). The co‐occurrence with physical frailty is more frequent with slow walking speed and, in the group with complaints, with self‐reported exhaustion. Conclusion The prevalence of physical frailty was higher in both cognitive complaints and cognitive impairment groups, compared with the cognitively unimpaired group. The subjective cognitive complaints can play a relevant role in characterizing the relation between physical and cognitive impairments.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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