MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4312003162 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igac059.2999

PSYCHOMETRICS IN THE DEVELOPING OF LONGITUDINAL MEASURES OF FRAILTY

2022· article· en· W4312003162 on OpenAlexaff
Stacey Voll, Graciela Muñiz‐Terrera, Scott M. Hofer

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulnerability (computing)Frailty IndexGerontologyPsychologyIdentification (biology)Longitudinal studyPsychometricsClinical psychologyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Frailty has become an increasingly important aspect in the field of health research in studies of vulnerability to adverse events and individuals functioning due to accumulated health deficits. Yet, there is no agreement on how to measure frailty or identify adults as frail, resulting in high heterogeneity between estimates of frailty and identification of frail individuals. The purpose of this poster is to provide a summary of the process in the development of a frailty index with robust psychometric properties to be used in research using longitudinal health study sets.

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)0.253
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.415
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2530.415
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.221 · 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.

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in Aging→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→