MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238049179 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afn115

Reply

2008· article· en· W4238049179 on OpenAlexaff
Giovanni Ravaglia, Paola Forti, A. Lucicesare, Nicoletta Pisacane, Elisa Rietti, C. C. Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SIR—We thank Dr De Lepeleire for his reflections on our paper [1], and we agree that general practitioners, due to limited consultation time, small office staff and cost constraints, may find it difficult to systematically administer test batteries. However, structured problem detection by means of multidimensional assessment instruments—the so-called Geriatric Comprehensive Assessment—although peculiar to the geriatrician's expertise, is actually crucial for an efficient evaluation and management of elderly patients at any level of medical care. Dr De Lepeleire states that assessment of nutritional and functional status and administration of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and geriatric depression scale (GDS) may be difficult to integrate into routine encounters in primary care. The observation, however, is not relevant to our score, as neither MMSE nor GDS were included among the final predictors, and assessment of nutrition was limited to calf measurement. With respect to the functional domain, our score measures it with four items from the instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) and the Tinetti's gait and balance test. IADLs are also included in one of the short frailty instruments proposed by Dr De Lepeleire himself [2] while the Tinetti test (the only structured assessment included in our score) just requires an armless chair and observation of how the subject sits and walks.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0150.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.015

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207