Evaluation of the Relationship Between Frailty Level and Quality of Life in Elderly Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The aim of the study was to examine the relationship between frailty level and quality of life in elderly individuals with Type 2 diabetes. Methods This descriptive and correlational study was conducted with 211 patients who applied to the diabetes outpatient clinic of a private and a public hospital in Istanbul between September and November 2022. The data were obtained by using the Personal Information Form, Edmonton Frail Scale and the Quality of Life in the Elderly Scale. Results The mean Edmonton Frail Scale score of the participants was 7.36 ± 4.35. Their mean quality of life scale score was 19.32 ± 7.12. A low degree of negative correlation was found between Elderly Quality of Life Scale total and subscale scores and the Edmonton Frail Scale score (p < 0.05). Besides, there was a statistically significant difference between the Edmonton Frail Scale mean score and education level, history of falling in the last 1 year, using oral antidiabetic drugs, and the presence of diabetes complications (p < 0.05). Conclusion It is recommended that frailty and quality of life should be evaluated regularly in elderly patients with diabetes and necessary planning should be made in diabetes management and improving quality of life in the presence of 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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".