MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4285328062 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igab046.1591

A Cross-Sectional Study Comparing Younger and Older Nursing Home Residents in Western Canada

2021· article· en· W4285328062 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bianca Shieu, Todd A. Schwartz, Anna Beeber, Matthias Hoben, Mark Toles, Ruth A. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionGerontologyMinimum Data SetCohortLong-term careDepression (economics)Nursing homesPopulationHealth careFamily medicineNursingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Specialized care for younger nursing home (NH) residents may be necessary to meet their unique health and quality of life needs; however, key attributes of younger NH residents are poorly understood and limit the development of effective, tailored interventions. This study described differences in clinical and nonclinical characteristics of younger vs. older nursing NH residents. In a retrospective cohort study, we used SPSS and analyzed comprehensive Resident Assessment Instrument – Minimum Data Set (RAI-MDS 2.0) data from NHs in Western Canada, for the period from January 2016 to December 2017. We included all assessments (full and abbreviated) performed quarterly. These findings indicated that younger (age 18-64) vs. older (age >=65) NH residents differed considerably: younger residents were predominately male, single, more obese, more depressed, had higher prevalence of depression, cerebral vascular accident, and hemi- or quadriplegia, and required more assistance in activities of daily living than older residents. The findings will contribute a better comprehension of the characteristics of the younger NH population and how they differ from other residents. The study provides useful information to policymakers, providers, and researchers to guide them in developing tailored policies, programs, and interventions. Also, findings may guide consumers as they plan for long-term care needs of loved ones. Finally, the findings provide a baseline estimate as researchers continue to track the growth of and changes in, the populations served in nursing homes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Aging→Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→