Towards an operational definition of oral frailty: A e-Delphi study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Building upon our recently developed conceptual definition of oral frailty (the age-related functional decline of orofacial structures), this e-Delphi study aims to develop an operational definition of oral frailty by identifying its components. METHODS: We used a modified e-Delphi study to reach a consensus among international experts on the components of oral frailty. Twelve out of fifteen invited experts in the field of gerodontology participated. Experts responded to three rounds of an online 5-point scale questionnaire of components to be included or excluded from the operational definition of oral frailty. After each round, scores and rationales were shared with all experts, after which they could revise their position. A consensus was reached when at least 70% of the experts agreed on whether or not a component should be included in the operational definition of oral frailty. RESULTS: The experts achieved a high level of agreement (80 - 100%) on including eight components of oral frailty and excluding nineteen. The operational definition of oral frailty should include the following components: 1) difficulty eating hard or tough foods, 2) inability to chew all types of foods, 3) decreased ability to swallow solid foods, 4) decreased ability to swallow liquids, 5) overall poor swallowing function, 6) impaired tongue movement, 7) speech or phonatory disorders, and 8) hyposalivation or xerostomia. CONCLUSION: This e-Delphi study provided eight components that make up the operational definition of oral frailty. These components are the foundation for the next stage, which involves developing an oral frailty assessment tool.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".