MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402201912 · doi:10.7759/cureus.68494

Frailty in Diabetic Population: A Study From Northern India

2024· article· en· W4402201912 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Samyak Golchha, Shankerdeep Sondhi, Sunita Gupta, Ashank Goel

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusObservational studyGlycemicGerontologyPopulationPsychological interventionDiseaseCross-sectional studyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Frailty, a key issue in geriatric health, signifies heightened vulnerability due to the decline in various physiological systems, exacerbated by conditions such as diabetes. Diabetes and frailty together lead to significant disabilities and higher mortality, necessitating early screening and targeted interventions. The relationship between frailty and diabetes remains under-researched, prompting this study to explore their association in individuals over 50 years of age using the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS). Methods and materials The study was an observational cross-sectional study conducted at MM Institute of Medical Sciences & Research (MMIMSR), Mullana, India, among 102 diabetic and 100 non-diabetic individuals aged more than 50 years, with data collected through interviews using a pre-validated proforma. Frailty was assessed using the EFS, categorizing patients into fit, vulnerable, and various levels of frailty based on their scores. Results The study found a higher prevalence and severity of frailty among diabetic individuals (61.8%) compared to non-diabetics (29%), with frailty being more pronounced across all age groups and both genders in diabetics. The severity of frailty increased with the duration of diabetes but showed no significant correlation with glycemic control (HbA1c). Strengths and limitations The study prospectively collected data, including middle-aged participants starting from age 50, and uniquely used the EFS to assess frailty in diabetic patients, excluding those with other chronic diseases (end-stage renal disease (ESRD), malignancy, etc.). However, limitations included a small sample size, recruitment from a single institution in India, and some EFS questions being less relevant to the Indian diabetic population. Conclusion The study found a 61.8% prevalence of frailty in diabetics compared to 29% in non-diabetics, with frailty being more severe and positively correlated with the duration of diabetes but not with glycemic control (HbA1c).

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)0.001
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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207