MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391826396 · doi:10.14283/jfa.2024.18

Identifying Frailty in Administrative Databases: A Narrative Review

2024· review· en· W4391826396 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Campeau Calfat, Caroline Sirois

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Frailty & Aging · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeDatabaseComputer scienceData scienceArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frailty is a state of increased vulnerability that can lead to premature death. While various clinical tools effectively measure frailty in individual care, their applicability at the population-level is limited. However, in the era of big-data, administrative databases serve as valuable sources for medication-based research and population surveillance. This narrative scoping review synthesizes the literature on tools used within administrative databases to detect frailty in community-dwelling older adults. The 17 identified publications explore four tools that meet the criteria of the Rockwood and Mitnitski frailty index model. Despite variations in the deficits they incorporate, all tools appear to be valuable for identifying frailty and predicting the risk of adverse events. Using those tools within administrative databases can be useful for research and surveillance purposes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.680
GPT teacher head0.602
Teacher spread0.078 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Frailty & AgingSame topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207