Accuracy of functional tests to identify frail community elderly
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To verify the accuracy of functional tests in identifying frail older adults in two different regions. Methods: Observational, descriptive and cross-sectional study with the participation of 120 community older adults. Fried Phenotype and Edmonton Frail Scale were used to classify the frailty and the Timed Up and Go (TUG) and gait speed tests to identify the frail older adults. Results: In Ribeirão Preto and Lagarto, frail older adults performed TUG test in a longer time than pre-frail (p = 0.001) and non-frail (p < 0.001). As for gait speed, frail older adults had lower speed than non-frail (p = 0.01). The TUG test had moderate accuracy for the identification of frail older adults in Ribeirão Preto (AUC = 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95, p < 0.001) and in Lagarto (AUC = 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.88, p = 0.001). Gait speed, on the other hand, is not accurate to discriminate frail older adults. The cut-off points for TUG with the highest sensitivity and specificity were 11.5 seconds for both older adults living in Ribeirão Preto and Lagarto. Conclusion: The TUG was capable of identifying frail older adults of two different regions, even when two different diagnostic methods of frailty were applied, standing out as a simple screening to be used in clinical practice.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it