MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7003765937

老年糖尿病患者衰弱发生率的系统评价

2021· other· zh· W7003765937 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanzhou University Institutional Repository · 2021
Typeother
Languagezh
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Identification (biology)Product (mathematics)Work (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

目的系统评价老年糖尿病患者衰弱的发生率,为制订适宜的护理干预措施提供依据。方法计算机检索PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国知网、维普和万方数据库,检索时限为建库至2020年8月,收集老年糖尿病患者衰弱发生率的观察性研究。由2名研究员根据纳入和排除标准独立筛选文献、提取资料,依据乔安娜布里格斯研究所(Joanna Briggs Institute,JBI)文献质量评价工具和纽尔卡斯-渥太华量表(Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Scale,NOS)对纳入文献进行质量评价,应用Stata 15.0软件进行系统评价,采用固定效应或随机效应模型进行数据合并,Egger秩相关检验和漏斗图判断发表偏倚。结果最终纳入27篇文献,共8 127例患者。系统评价结果显示,老年糖尿病患者衰弱的总体发生率为30%[95%CI(0.24~0.37)],衰弱前期的总体发生率为44%[95%CI(0.38~0.51)]。亚组分析结果显示,女性老年糖尿病患者衰弱的发生率(31%)高于男性(24%);医院发生率(31%)高于社区(30%);采用综合性衰弱筛查工具评估衰弱时,其发生率(43%)高于躯体性衰弱筛查工具(27%);北美洲地区发生率(41%)高于亚洲地区(28%)和欧洲地区(27%)。结论老年糖尿病患者衰弱的发生率较高,衰弱前期的发生率更高。护理人员不仅要重视对该人群进行衰弱的早期筛查,更要加强对衰弱前期的识别,制订合理的干预措施以改善老年糖尿病患者预后并提高其生活质量。

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.201 · 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