Relación entre Fragilidad en adultos mayores y Fuerza de prensión disminuida
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To find out if decreased grip strength is associated with frailty and adverse outcomes at three-month follow-up. Materials and methods: A descriptive, observational and prospective study. Patients older than 59 years of age attending a day hospital were included in the research. The dominant hand grip strength was measured during an outpatient visit. Frailty was assessed using the Edmonton Frail Scale. The association between decreased grip strength, frailty and adverse outcomes at three-month follow-up was evaluated using the chi-square test and Student’s t-test.Results: Grip strength was measured in 82 older adults (out of whom 46 were females) whose mean age was 83.68 years. Based on the Edmonton Frail Scale, 83.33 % of the study subjects were severely frail, 87.87 % were moderately frail, 86.66 % were mildly frail and 46.66 % were vulnerable to frailty. According to this scale, “not frail” older adults were those who did not show decreased grip strength. Decreased grip strength was associated with frailty (p = 0.002). Adverse outcomes at three-month follow-up were frequent in older adults with decreased grip strength (p = 0.49) and those with frailty (p = 0.48), although such outcomes were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Decreased grip strength is associated with frailty. At three-month follow-up, all the study participants who died had decreased grip strength.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".