Assessment of Frailty in Elderly Individuals with Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: This descriptive and cross-sectional study assessed the frailty levels of geriatric individuals with heart failure. Material and Methods: The study was conducted in the emergency department, cardiology polyclinic, and clinic at a State Hospital between June and August 2023. Power analysis was performed to determine the sample size, and the study was completed with 115 geriatric individuals willing to participate and meeting the inclusion criteria. Before the study, necessary permissions were obtained from the institution, the ethics committee, and participants. A questionnaire prepared by the researchers, the Standardized Mini Mental Test (SMMT), and the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) were used for data collection. The scores obtained from the EFS range between 0 and 17. A score of 0-4 indicates 'not frail', 5-6 indicates 'vulnerable', 7-8 indicates 'mildly frail,' 9-10 indicates 'moderately frail', and a score of 11 and above indicates 'severely frail'. Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for data analysis. Results: The mean age of the individuals was 73.12±6.48 years, 54.8% were female, 37.4% were primary school graduates, 52.2% had a disease duration of 1-5 years, and 49.6% had stage II heart failure. The mean EFS score among geriatric individuals was 8.60±4.53, with 36.5% classified in the 'severely frail' group. It was found that female, single individuals living alone, with comorbid diabetes, stage IV heart failure, and not monitoring their weight had a higher mean EFS score (p
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".