MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7066344430

Fit-Frailty App as an Evaluative Measure in Rehabilitation

2025· dissertation· en· W7066344430 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2025
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle Detector Development and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialBaseline (sea)RehabilitationReliability (semiconductor)Observational studyQuality of life (healthcare)Psychometrics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Frailty is a common indicator of health, but more evidence is needed to establish its use as an evaluative measure. Understanding frailty responsiveness is important when selecting tools to monitor treatment effect. This pre-post observational study investigated the feasibility of measuring meaningful change in frailty following rehabilitation using the Fit-Frailty App, a validated and interactive mobile health application. Methods: The Fit-Frailty App multidimensional assessment considers medical history, physical performance, cognition, nutrition, daily function, and psychosocial domains to calculate a total frailty index score. We recruited a convenience sample of 52 adults age 65+ admitted to a slow stream rehabilitation unit in Hamilton, Ontario. Research assistants administered the App within 3 days after admission (baseline 1), after initial assessment (baseline 2), and before discharge (follow-up). Feasibility outcomes (e.g., recruitment, safety, acceptability) were evaluated based on Thabane et al.’s framework. Baseline 1 and follow-up scores were compared using paired t-tests with ≥0.03 change considered clinically meaningful and p≤0.007 statistically significant. An ICC and 95%CI were calculated to evaluate test-retest reliability between baseline 1 and 2 scores. Results: Between Mar-Sep 2024, n=125 were admitted, n=62 were screened, and n=52 consented (58% female, mean age 80.1, SD=8.9 years). Mean Fit-Frailty scores were 0.45 (SD=0.08) at baseline 1 (n=52), 0.44 (SD=0.09) at baseline 2 (n=50), and 0.35 (SD=0.11) at follow-up (n=40). All feasibility criteria were met except retention rate (<80%). There was clinically meaningful mean improvement between baseline 1 and follow-up scores of 0.10 (95%CI=0.07-0.12, p<0.001) over mean 55.7 (SD=24.9) days length of stay. The App demonstrated good-to-excellent reliability over mean 3.7 (SD=1.4) days (ICC=0.896, 95%CI=0.823-0.939). Conclusions: The Fit-Frailty App was feasibly implemented on a slow stream rehabilitation unit with good-to-excellent short-term test-retest reliability and large long-term responsiveness. The Fit-Frailty App results summary of frailty contributors can support intervention and discharge planning.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.237 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)Same topicParticle Detector Development and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207