MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403824081 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckae144.998

Frailty and related factors among community-dwelling older adults in Türkiye

2024· article· en· W4403824081 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S Sert, Oğuz Han Aydilek, Erman Kavlu, Ostrander Er, S Metintaş

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerontologyMedicinePsychologyDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Frailty in elderly can lead to complex challenges in the follow-up and management of health services. Ensuring comprehensive primary care services and social support can avert, reverse, or mitigate frailty in old age. We aimed to evaluate frailty and its associated factors in individuals aged ≥65 years. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study in patients applying to primary care centres in 2024, in a city where 10% of the population is elderly. The centres were divided into clusters based on the socioeconomic status of the regions they serve, and nine were randomly selected by weight. A total of 1154 elderly who consecutively presented were included. A questionnaire including sociodemographic characteristics, Edmonton Frailty Scale, Loneliness Scale for the Elderly (LSE), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), International Falls Effectiveness Scale (FES-I) was applied to the elderly. Results The mean age was 71.3±5.3 years, and 50.8% were male. In the study, 20.1% were frail, and 19.6% were apparently vulnerable. It was found that those aged 70-79 and ≥80 years, women, deceased/separated from their spouses, those with low education, those whose occupation was housewife, those earning below minimum wage, those who lived alone, non-exercisers, those taking >8 medications/day, and those who had ≥2 falls/last year were more frail. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, illiteracy (Odds ratio-OR:15.2, 95%CI:1.7-135.5), taking >8 medications/day (OR:4.1, 1.7-9.9), falling ≥2 times/last year (OR:3.4, 1.8-6.4) and ≥4 points on the CCI (OR:1.9, 1.0-3.4) were found to be predictors of frailty. Each score on the FES-I and LSE increased the risk of frailty by 1.08 (1.05-1.11) and 1.13 (1.08-1.17) times, respectively. Conclusions One in five people was found to be frail. Low education level, >8 medications/day, ≥2 falls in the last year, severity of comorbidity, fear of falling, and high levels of loneliness were found to be predictive factors for frailty. Key messages • Encouraging a healthy lifestyle to prevent comorbid diseases and early interventions to avoid falls can reduce frailty. • Providing social activities in primary care and promoting the elderly to participate in these activities can help prevent loneliness, which is a risk factor of 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 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public Health→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→