Evaluation of functional disability and associated factors in the elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: To estimate the prevalence and self-reported socio-demographic and health factors associated with functional disability in basic and instrumental activities of daily living among the elderly. Method: A cross-sectional study was carried out, based on a representative sample of elderly people receiving care at a reference unit in the north of the state of Minas Gerais. The data were collected in 2015. Demographic and socioeconomic variables, morbidity, hospitalizations in the previous year, frailty (Edmonton Frail Scale), geriatric depression (GDS-15), and functional disability (Katz Index, Lawton and Brody Scales) were analyzed. Multiple analysis was performed using Poisson regression with robust variance. Results: 360 elderly people aged 65 years and over participated in the study. The prevalence of functional disability for Basic Activities of Daily Living was 21.4% while for instrumental activities it was 78.3%. Functional disability in basic activities was higher among elderly males (p=0.03) who had suffered strokes (p=0.00) and were frail (p=0.00), while for instrumental activities it was higher among older elderly persons (p=0.04); who were illiterate (p=0.00), had less than five years of schooling (p=0.02); had depressive symptoms (p=0.00) and were frail (p=0.00). It was lower among elderly persons who lived alone. Conclusion: A high prevalence of functional disability was identified among the elderly for instrumental activities of daily living, demonstrating the need for an effective and immediate approach by health professionals, who should employ preventive care in order to tackle this problem.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".