Edentulism and frailty in domiciled older adults: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To investigate the association between frailty and edentulism in community-dwelling older adults and determine the individual, sociodemographic, and clinical factors associated. Method A total of 333 older adults aged 65 years or more participated in this study; they responded to the Edmonton Frail Scale instrument (EFS). Data on socioeconomic factors, oral health, and use of and need for dentures were also collected. Those with cognitive difficulties were excluded. Hierarchical multivariable logistic regression models were performed using the stepwise and backward procedure, which tested the relationship of edentulism and covariates with EFS results. Variables with p<0,20 in the unadjusted analyzes were included in the adjusted logistic regression. Results The prevalence of moderate to severe frailty was 12.3%. Edentulism was related to frailty (OR 3,45; IC 95%: 1,45 – 8,25; p=0,01), age (OR 2,19; IC 95%: 1,07 – 4.46; p=0,03), female sex (OR 2,75; IC 95%: 1,23 – 6,15; p=0,01), the need of lower dental prosthesis (OR 3,19; IC 95%: 1,27 – 8,05; p=0,01) and toothache perception (OR 2,74; IC 95%: 1,15 – 6,15; p=0,02). Conclusions Frailty was associated with edentulism, age, female sex, the need for lower dental prosthesis and toothache perception. These oral conditions are highly prevalent among older adults and can be prevented by multiprofessional actions supported by public policies. Oral examinations should be considered in pre-frail and frail patients’ assessments as oral health indicators were associated of older adults’ frailty.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".