Validation of the Clinical Frailty Scale version 2.0 in Turkish older patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Frailty is a syndrome that affects certain older adults more than others, and it has physical, cognitive, psychological, social and environmental aspects. The aim of our study was to determine the validity and reliability of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) version 2.0 in Turkish. In total, 204 older adults aged ≥65 years took part in this study. METHODS: The necessary permissions were obtained from Rockwood et al. The Turkish version of CFS version 2.0 had been appropriately translated through translation to the back-translation process. A questionnaire was used to investigate certain descriptive features, as well as the newly edited Turkish translation of CFS version 2.0, the Turkish version of the FRAIL Scale and the Turkish version of the Edmonton Frail Scale. RESULTS: The age range was 65-95 years. In a Pearson correlation analysis, a positive link was discovered between FRAIL and CFS (r = 0.761 and P = 0.000) as well as CFS and Edmonton (r = 0.895 and P = 0.000). CONCLUSION: The Turkish translation of CFS version 2.0 has been determined to be suitable, valid and reliable for use in frailty screening in outpatient clinics. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2022; 22: 730-735.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".