Frailty in community-dwelling older adults: a comparative study of screening instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective to analyze the agreement between the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) and the Clinical Functional Vulnerability Index (CFVI-20). Methods cross-sectional study, during which the Edmonton Frail Scale and the Clinical Functional Vulnerability Index were applied, at home, to older adults, registered in units of the Family Health Strategy of Montes Claros (MG) and randomly selected by lot. To evaluate the correlation and agreement between the instruments, Pearson's correlation coefficient and the weighted Kappa were calculated, considering three levels of frailty classification, as follows: "robust", "risk of frail" and "frail" for the IVCF-20 and "not frail", "vulnerable" and “frail’” for the EFS. Results We evaluated 673 older adults, predominantly brown, between 60 and 74 years old and female. According to the IVCF-20, 153 (22.7%) of the older adults were classified as "frail", 195 (29%) as "risk of frail" and 325 (48.3%) as "robust". According to the EFS, 159 older adults (23.6%) were classified as "frail"; 112 (16.6%) older adults "apparently vulnerable" and 402 (59.7%) "not frail". Pearson's correlation coefficient was 0.865 (p<0.001) and showed a positive correlation between the instruments and Kappa statistics showed a value of 0.532 (p=0.027), revealing moderate agreement. Conclusion The instruments evaluated showed moderate agreement and strong positive correlation, despite the differences between some of their components. Both showed to be compatible for the assessment of frailty in older adults in the context of Primary Health Care.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".