Association between vulnerability, frailty and risk of falling in elderly people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vulnerability and frailty are well-known fall risk factors in older people. However, whether both factors are associated has not been fully elucidated, and more current scientific evidence on this relationship is still lacking. The objective of this study was to analyze the relationship between vulnerability and fragility and the risk of being left behind. This is a cross-sectional study, a household survey of elderly people aged ≥ 60 years, carried out in two Family Health Units in the southwest of Bahia, with a sample of 218 elderly people. The instruments used were: Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE); sociodemographic questionnaire and health conditions; Edmonton Frailty Scale; Time Up and Go Test (TUGT) and the Vulnerability Scale/VES13. For data analysis, the Prevalence Ratio estimated by the Poisson regression model was used using the statistical software SPSS version 21.0. There was a significant association between the risk of falls and frailty (PR=1.06; CI=0.89-1.26; p<0.001), when the model was adjusted with the variables age group, MMSE and vulnerability. The risk of falling is directly related to frailty in older people, but not to vulnerability. Health care, such as physical activity, is needed to reduce the risk of falls.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".