Association between physical frailty and social support in community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Older adults with frailty have an increased likelihood of unmet care needs, falls and fractures and so on, which brings serious burdens to society. By evaluating the association between physical frailty and social support in community-dwelling older adults, we will provide reference for preventing the occurrence of frailty. METHODS: Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on association between frailty and social support in community-dwelling older adults were mainly searched from the database of Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus and Web of Science from their establishment to February 16, 2024. After literature screening, two researchers completed data extraction, and the risk of bias was assessed using the 8-item Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies for cross-sectional studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for Cohort Studies for longitudinal studies. RESULTS: The study included a total of 14 articles, including 9 cross-sectional studies and 5 longitudinal studies. There was no clear consensus on the correlation between social support and frailty among community-dwelling older adults. The overall quality of the included studies was very high. CONCLUSION: Although the correlation between social support and frailty among community-dwelling older adults needs further verification, given the important role of social support, it is still recommended that family members provide multi-faceted social support, especially subjective support, for older adults.
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 | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".