MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211145054 · doi:10.1002/agm2.12198

Promoting early management of frailty in the new normal: An updated software tool in addressing the need of virtual assessment of frailty at points of care

2022· article· en· W4211145054 on OpenAlexafffund
Katayoun Sepehri, Hilary Low, Jenny K. Hoang, Grace Park, Xiaowei Song

Bibliographic record

VenueAging Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsFraser HealthSimon Fraser UniversitySurrey Memorial Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicMedicineSoftwareFunction (biology)Computer scienceHealth careFrailty IndexDiseaseGerontologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Frailty is a state of diminished physiological reserve and can be assessed using the frailty index. Early management of frailty is crucial for preventing adverse outcomes. Intended for assessing home-living older adults, the initial release of the eFI-CGA software was prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: In addressing the increased need of virtual assessment, the eFI-CGA was upgraded to version 3.0. In this paper, we introduce the updated electronic frailty assessment tool, reporting the newly developed features and validating its use. Results: End-user experiences with the previous versions are discussed. The updated features include a search function to resume disrupted assessments. The improved user interface enabled clinicians to record care management details. Conclusion: This study represents an example of software solutions in moving from disruption to transformation, benefiting healthcare for older adults during this challenging time.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAging MedicineSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207