MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408495552 · doi:10.56974/pmjn.225

Frailty among Elderly visiting the Outpatient Department of Internal Medicine in a Tertiary Care Centre

2024· article· en· W4408495552 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hricha Neupane, Janaki Dhami, Sharada Acharya

Bibliographic record

VenuePost-Graduate Medical Journal of NAMS · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTertiary careMedicineOutpatient clinicMedical emergencyFamily medicineGerontologyEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Frailty is a common geriatric condition and is highly widespread among elderly people. There are global challenges to meeting the healthcare needs of the elderly with a rapidly growing elderly population. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of frailty among the elderly visiting the Outpatient Department of Internal Medicine in a tertiary care centre. Methods: A cross-sectional study was done in the Internal Medicine Outpatient Department in a tertiary care centre from 01 March 2024 to 30 April 2024 after obtaining ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board. Convenience sampling was done. Data were collected using Edmonton Frail Scale Acute Care Version by face-to-face interview technique. Data were entered and analyzed in IBM SPSS Statistics version 20.0. Results: Among 168 elderly patients, 75 (44.64%) [37.12–52.16, 95% Confidence Interval] were found to be frail whereas 93 (55.36%) were not frail (non-frail+vulnerable). After multivariate binary logistic regression analysis, the independent factors of frailty are age (AOR 3.942; CI 1.737-8.950), number of medicines (AOR 9.721; CI 3.408-27.729) and physical activity (AOR 0.233; CI 0.81-0.674). Conclusions: The prevalence of frailty among elderly people in this study was comparable to similar studies in different settings. The associated factors of frailty were found to be age, physical activity and number of medicines taken in our study. These factors could be taken into consideration while doing health assessment of the elderly.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 venuePost-Graduate Medical Journal of NAMS→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→