Self-rated frailty, resilience, and mortality of old men: the Manitoba follow-up study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults self-rating of frailty, an experience that results in increased risk of disability, hospitalization, and mortality, was examined in this thesis. The objectives were to assess the validity of self-rated frailty, examine the possibility of recovering from a frail state (i.e evidence for resiliency), and determine whether self-rated frailty relates to mortality. The Clinical Frailty Scale was used as a simple self-rating of frailty among 146 male participants of a cohort study of aging, the Manitoba Follow-up Study. Self-ratings of “moderate-severe” frailty were associated with worse measures of physical health and functional impairment, thus supporting the validity of self-rated frailty. The proportion of men who reported an improvement in their self-rated frailty over one or two years was significant (p<0.05). The Hazard Ratio for mortality was 3.3 (95% CI: 1.5, 7.1) for those who rated themselves as “mildly to severely frail” vs. “very fit or well, with no disease”.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".