Tracking frailty in older adults with systemic arterial hypertension through different instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To compare the degree of agreement, correlation, and accuracy between the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) and the Clinical-Functional Vulnerability Index-20 (IVCF-20) instruments in older adults with systemic arterial hypertension (SAH). Method Cross-sectional household study with older adults from Montes Claros, MG. This study included only individuals with SAH whose data were collected from November 2016 to February 2017. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were determined. The Kappa statistic analyzed agreement and reliability, while the Pearson coefficient evaluated the correlation between the instruments. Results A total of 281 individuals with hypertension were included in this study. It was found that the prevalence of frailty was 31.3% according to the EFS and 22.1% according to the IVCF-20. The Kappa statistic was 0.604, and the Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.621 (p<0.001). The accuracy was 84.34%. Conclusion The EFS and IVCF-20 instruments verified moderate agreement and reliability, strong positive correlation, and good accuracy. The results confirm the importance of standardizing the instrument to assess frailty in older adults with hypertension. The appropriate assessment of frailty aims to provide care focused on prevention and promotion that can prevent worsening health status and complications of arterial hypertension.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".