ORTHOSTATIC HYPOTENSION AND FRAILTY SYNDROM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of our research was to define the relationship between orthostatic hypotension (OH) and frailty syndrome (FS) in the older age group. Materials and methods: the cross-sectional study involved patients of the older age group diagnosed with Parkinson's disease (PD) and cerebrovascular disease (CVD - chronic cerebral ischemia, chronic phase of ischemic stroke). All patients had comorbid OH. OH was established on the basis of a classical orthostatic test [10]. Each group included patients with different functional classes of OH (FC OH), from 1 to 4 [7]. The functional class of OH was determined using the orthostatic hypotension questionnaire (assessment of OH symptoms and the OH daily activity scale) [8]. All participants were assessed for the FS index based on the Edmonton Frail Scale [9]. Results: OH and FS has a close relationship, which is reflected in the direct correlation between OH and FS index (r=0.9). The higher FC OH, the more severe FS (p=0.001). The FC OH 1 corresponds to vulnerable, FC OH 2 to mild FS, FC OH 3 to moderate FS, and FC OH 4 to severe FS. Conclusions: OH, having a close relationship with FS, may make an additional contribution to the reduction of the duration and quality of life of patients with FS and elderly patients [3, 5]. Unfortunately, currently, OH has not been included in the criteria of FS and is not evaluated in this cohort [9]. Therefore, we believe it is important to perform orthostatic testing in all patients with FS, which will prevent the occurrence of life-threatening complications caused by the persistence of OH [3, 5]. In the future, OH should be included in the criteria of FS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".