Factores que contribuyen para el diagnóstico de enfermería riesgo para el síndrome del anciano frágil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: Identificar os fatores de risco que contribuem com o diagnóstico de enfermagem Risco de síndrome do idoso frágil da NANDA-I. Método: Estudo transversal com 395 idosos entre novembro de 2010 a janeiro de 2013, num hospital escola do Sul do Brasil. Foram coletados dados sociodemográficos e identificados os níveis de fragilidade pela Escala de Edmonton. Resultados: Foram identificados 177 (44,81%) idosos com fragilidade. Houve associação significativa entre fragilidade e sexo femi- nino (p=0,031), cor não branca (p=0,008), sem companheiro (p=0,014), nenhuma escolaridade (p=0,001), renda mensal inferior a um salário mínimo (p=0,034), morbidades preexistentes para doenças do aparelho respiratório (p=0,003) e doenças infecciosas e parasitárias (p=0,040). As doenças do aparelho geniturinário (p=0,035), respiratório (p=0,001) e do sangue (p=0,035) foram os principais motivos de internação. Conclusão: Os resultados contribuem para o desenvolvimento e implementação do diagnóstico de enfermagem em estudo no ambiente hospitalar.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".