Elderly frailty in a social center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26694/reufpi.v9i0.9559 Objetivo: avaliar a fragilidade clinico-funcional de idosos participantes de um centro de convivencia. Metodologia: estudo com delineamento transversal, com 216 idosos de um centro de convivencia em Teresina – PI. A coleta de dados ocorreu no periodo de abril a agosto de 2018, por meio do uso de um questionario para caracterizacao sociodemografica e clinica, escala de fragilidade de Edmonton, escala de Autopercepcao de Saude. O estudo obedeceu as normas da n°. 466/2012, sob parecer no 3.131.094/ 2019, do comite de etica em pesquisa da Universidade Federal do Piaui-UFPI. Resultados: constatou-se que 30,1% dos idosos sao aparentemente vulneraveis, 11,6% possuem fragilidade leve, 1,4% fragilidade moderada e 2,3% apresentam fragilidade grave. As caracteristicas sociodemograficas (renda individual e renda familiar) associaram-se a fragilidade clinico-funcional (p=0.001). Conclusao: Os resultados deste estudo demonstraram que a maioria dos idosos avaliados frequentadores do grupos de convivencia foram classificados como nao frageis, o que se deve em maior parte pelos habitos saudaveis adotados pela coletividade estudada, tais como a pratica de atividade fisica regular e a nao adocao de comportamentos nocivos a saude.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".