[A screening and comprehensive assessment programme aimed at secondary prevention of disability in community-dwelling frail older subjects: a pilot study].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to test a screening and comprehensive assessment procedures for frail elderly in Tuscany (Central Italy) in the perspective of interventions to prevent disability. DESIGN: two-phases feasibility study: a) screening phase, using a postal questionnaire and b) comprehensive assessment phase, aimed at identifying risk factors for disability that might be targeted by specific interventions. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 11,589 individuals aged over 70, living at home, identified from residents registry of 2 health care districts in Tuscany, excluding subjects with recognized disability and those living in nursing home. Participants were sent a 7-item postal questionnaire (modified Sherbrooke Postal Questionnaire). Respondents with a score =3, suggestive of frailty, were offered an in-home comprehensive assessment performed by a nurse or social worker, oriented to ascertain independence in activities of daily living, lower limbs extremity function, mood status, malnutrition risk, cognitive level, visual acuity, hearing function, environmental risk and medications number. General practitioners, social workers or specific health care services were thereafter informed about results of the assessment with recommendations for specific interventions. RESULTS: among 6,629 respondents to the questionnaire, 52% (No. 3,432) scored =3, triggering the comprehensive assessment, which was performed in 66% of cases (No. 2,276). Out of them, 38% showed already a disability in basic activities of daily living. Of the remaining 1,411, 38% showed a disability in instrumental activities of daily living, 30% a reduced lower limb extremity function, 18% depressive symptoms, and 11% a cognitive impairment. Human resources used for the project were limited in relation to the extent of the involved population. CONCLUSIONS: postal screening of frailty in older subjects is feasible and is able to identify patients who might benefit from further assessment to address interventions for specific risk factors.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".