Frailty in community-dwelling older people: comparing screening instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE: To compare the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) and Clinical-Functional Vulnerability Index-20 (CFVI-20) instruments regarding degree of agreement and correlation and compare descriptive models with frailty-associated variables in community-dwelling older people in Brazil. METHODS: Cross-sectional study, nested in a population-based and household cohort. Baseline sampling was calculated based on a probabilistic approach by conglomerate in two stages. In the first stage, census tract was used as sampling unit. In the second, the number of households was defined according to the population density of individuals aged ≥ 60 years. The Kappa statistic evaluated the agreement between instruments and Pearson's coefficient their correlation. Factors associated with frailty and high risk of clinical-functional vulnerability were identified by multiple analysis of Poisson regression with robust variance. RESULTS: Kappa statistics was 0.599 and Pearson's correlation coefficient 0.755 (p < 0.001). The EFS found a 28.2% prevalence of frailty, and the CFVI-20 found a 19.5% prevalence of high risk of clinical-functional vulnerability. Age equal to or greater than 80 years, history of stroke, polypharmacy, negative self-perceived health, fall in the past 12 months, and hospitalization in the past 12 months were variables associated with frailty in both instruments after multiple analysis. Less than four years of education, osteoarticular disease, and weight loss were associated with frailty only by EFS, and having a caregiver was associated with a high risk of clinical-functional vulnerability only by CFVI-20. CONCLUSIONS: Although the analyses show moderate agreement and strong positive correlation between the instruments, the indicated prevalence of frailty is discrepant. Our results attest the need to standardize the instrument for assessing frailty in community-dwelling older people.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".