The Relationship Between Diabetes Burden and Frailty in Older Adults with Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To determine the relationship between diabetes burden and frailty in older diabetic patients. Material and Methods: This descriptive and correlational study examined 208 diabetic patients aged 65 years and older who were admitted to internal medicine or surgical outpatient clinics, or hospitalized in a state or university hospital between December 2018 and May 2019. Data were collected using the "Patient Information Form," the "Elderly Diabetes Burden Scale" and the "Edmonton Frail Scale." The data were analyzed using percentages, means, the Mann-Whitney U test, the Kruskal-Wallis test, and the Spearman correlation test. Results: The mean age of the participants was 70 ± 4.59 years (minimum: 65, maximum: 86). The mean Edmonton Frail Scale score was 6.46 ± 3.99, and 48.1% of patients were frail to varying degrees. The mean total score on the Elderly Diabetes Burden Scale was 51.97 ± 13.7. There were significant differences in the type of diabetes treatment, the development of complications, presence of additional chronic diseases, and diabetes burden (p < 0.05). A significant difference was found between age, education level, marital status, number of cohabitants, duration of diabetes, development of diabetes complications, the presence of additional chronic diseases, and frailty (p < 0.05). The study found a significant moderate positive correlation between frailty and the diabetes burden. Conclusions: The study concluded that approximately half of individuals with diabetes were frail and experienced a moderate level of diabetes burden, which increased with greater frailty. Implication for nursing practice: Nurses should regularly assess both the frailty levels and the diabetes burden of older people with diabetes, and support their self-management skills to alleviate these challenges.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".