MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6991788188

Impacto do risco de sarcopenia em pacientes com Doença de Parkinson e sua relação com qualidade de vida e fragilidade

2023· other· pt· W6991788188 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLume (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) · 2023
Typeother
Languagept
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSarcopeniaQuality of life (healthcare)Parkinson's diseaseDiseaseActivities of daily living
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objetivo: Avaliar o impacto do risco da sarcopenia na qualidade de vida e na fragilidade de pacientes com doença de Parkinson. Método: Estudo transversal, realizado em um hospital de referência na região Sul do Brasil, entre os meses de setembro/2022 à fevereiro/2023. Incluíram-se indivíduos com idade ≥ 18 anos, com diagnóstico de doença de Parkinson idiopática submetidos à avaliação da sarcopenia através do protocolo de triagem SARC-F e à força muscular por meio da avaliação da força de preensão palmar. A fragilidade foi verificada pelo protocolo Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) e a qualidade de vida foi mensurada por meio do Parkinson 's disease questionnaire-8 (PDQ-8) - versão reduzida. Resultados: A amostra foi composta por 35 pacientes classificados em três grupos distintos: 13 (37,14%) no grupo sem sarcopenia, 10 (28,57%) no grupo sugestivo de sarcopenia e 12 (34,28%) com risco de sarcopenia. O risco de sarcopenia relacionou-se à síndrome de fragilidade e a piores índices de qualidade de vida em pacientes com doença de Parkinson idiopática, sem, contudo, apresentar relação com seus aspectos clínicos. Conclusão: Idosos com doença de Parkinson e risco de sarcopenia são mais frágeis e têm pior percepção de qualidade de vida.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.277 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLume (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul)Same topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207