Edmonton Frail Scale – caregiver is a reliable source of information about the functional status of a hospitalized elderly patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The success of geriatric care requires cooperation with the patient's caregivers. This study aims to compare the perspectives of elderly patients and their caregivers on functional efficiency, as measured by the Edmonton Frail Scale. By examining the discrepancies in these assessments, we hope to better understand perceptions of frailty-related functional limitations and improve the personalized approaches in geriatric care. Material and methods: This cross-sectional study enrolled a sample of hospitalized patients, based on availability of researchers. Exclusion criteria involved: age < 65, communication barriers, manual disability, exacerbation of a chronic disease or acute condition, no contact to the caregiver, lack of consent. The McNemar-Bowker test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to compare patients' and their caregivers' responses. Results: Forty five patients were enrolled. The answers concerning cognitive functions, laundry, and functional performance were statistically different (p < 0.001). Whereas after applying the Holm-Bonferroni method for multiple testing only the judgment of cognitive functions remained statistically different. Other domains showed no statistical differences. Conclusions: Our results may in general confirm the credibility of caregivers' perspective in the patients' functional assessment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".