Frailty syndrome, feelings of powerlessness andfunctional capacity in elderly patients with venous ulcers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: there are significant changes in the demographic and health standards of the world's population, with growth of the elderly population. Most elderly feature changes at various levels and when affected by venous ulcer, these changes to culminate with the growing dependence and need for help to perform basic activities; this can be prevented or reduced, if there is adequate assistance and environment. Objective: to evaluate the level of fragility, functional capacity and sense of impotence in the elderly with Venous Ulcers. Method: from May to August 2017 2018 112 patients were interviewed split into two groups (with and without Venous Ulcer), using the questionnaires Edmonton Frail Scale, Health Assessment Questionnaire-20 and the Measuring Instrument of Feeling of Helplessness. Results: In relation to EFS, 76.7% of ulcer patients showed that the score ranked in the categories "vulnerable and frail", compared to 23.3% of patients from group “no ulcer". For the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ-20) there are statistically significant differences between the groups with respect to all components of the questionnaire, which means the group of elderly with Venous Ulcer presents decreased ability functional in general compared to the elderly without venous ulcer. With respect to the measuring instrument of the feeling of helplessness, the average score of the group with an ulcer was 76.29, while the group without ulcer was 36.71, therefore, these patients feel more powerless with your situation. Conclusion: Venous Ulcer gives negative impact on functional capacity and increases feelings of helplessness and frailty in the elderly.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".