MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396839008 · doi:10.52538/iduhes.1348629

INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FRAILTY AND DEPENDENCY IN INDIVIDUALS LIVING IN A NURSING HOME

2024· article· en· W4396839008 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hamide Şişman, Dudu Alptekin, Emir İbrahim Işık, Hilal Işık

Bibliographic record

VenueIzmir Democracy University Health Sciences Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFragilityBarthel indexGerontologyNursing homesIncidence (geometry)Activities of daily livingMedicineElderly peopleDependency (UML)Descriptive statisticsPsychologyNursingPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fragility that occurs with aging increases the risk of dependency. This study was conducted to determine the level of fragility in elderly individuals. The descriptive and cross-sectional study was conducted with 68 elderly people staying in nursing homes between 15.10.2019 and 30.02.2020. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews by the researcher using the Introductory Information Form, Edmonton Frail Scale and Barthel Index. 69.1% of the participants were female and the mean age was 77±10. The number of elderly with severe frailty was 22 (32.4%), and the number of those who were completely dependent was 23 (33.8%), and a statistically significant relationship was found between them (X2=19.55, p=0.00). The incidence of frailty was high in the elderly living in nursing homes. In parallel with the incidence of fragility, dependency levels were also found to be high. It is recommended to evaluate the elderly in terms of fragility in order to reduce their dependency levels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIzmir Democracy University Health Sciences Journal→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→