Relationship between frailty, according to three frail scores, and clinical and laboratory parameters of the geriatric patients with type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The term "frailty in the elderly" has become increasingly important with the increase of the elderly population, especially in diabetic subjects. Frailty is established by various scoring scales, such as Edmonton, Frail, and Prisma-7 scores. We aimed to evaluate the association between frailty and clinical and laboratory parameters of the geriatric type 2 diabetic patients. METHODS: Diabetic patients over 65 years of age who presented to outpatient internal medicine clinics of our institution between June 2020 and January 2021 were enrolled to the study. Edmonton, Frail, and Prisma-7 scores were administered to the subjects. Study parameters were compared between well-controlled and poorly controlled diabetic groups according to diabetes control level and between frail and non-frail groups, according to each frailty scores. RESULTS: Frailty according to Edmonton score was associated with increased risks of hospitalization (p=0.005) and mortality (p=0.02). Frailty according to frail score was associated with increased risk of hospitalization (p=0.009). Frailty according to Prisma-7 score was associated with increased risk of mortality (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: We suggest that Edmonton frail score is superior to Frail and Prisma-7 scores in determining frailty in geriatric patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, since it is associated with both increased risk of hospitalization and mortality within 6 months.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".