Prevalence and factors associated with frailty in older adults with hypertension using the Edmonton Frail Scale and the Clinical Functional Vulnerability Index-20
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To assess the prevalence of frailty and compare the variables associated with frailty in Brazilian community-dwelling older adults with hypertension using the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) and the Clinical Functional Vulnerability Index-20 (IVCF-20). Methods This is a cross-sectional analytical study conducted with community-dwelling older adults with hypertension aged ≥60 years residing in the city of Montes Claros, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Sample selection followed a probabilistic cluster sampling model. Data were collected between November 2016 and February 2017 through in-home questionnaire administration. Demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical-care variables were analyzed. Poisson regression with robust variance was used to obtain crude and adjusted prevalence ratios. Results A total of 281 older adults with hypertension participated in the study. The overall prevalence of frailty as assessed by the EFS was 31.3%, and by the IVCF-20 was 22.1%. Variables that were statistically associated with frailty in older adults with hypertension, as determined by both the EFS and IVCF-20 simultaneously, were: advanced age (80 years or older), comorbidities such as rheumatoid arthritis/osteoarthritis, stroke, negative self-perception of health, falls, and hospitalizations in the last 12 months. Only by the EFS, variables associated with frailty included less than 4 years of education, absence of religious practice, and lack of personal income. Meanwhile, according to the IVCF-20, only monthly family income was associated with frailty. Conclusion It was found that frailty assessed by EFS and IVCF-20 exhibits similarity; however, EFS is more sensitive. These findings underscore the imperative for healthcare professionals to early identify 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".