MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3212444048 · doi:10.1182/blood-2021-153710

Frailty Scale for Outcome Predictions in Hematopoietic Cell Transplanted Adults

2021· article· en· W3212444048 sur OpenAlexaff
María Queralt Salas, Eshetu G. Atenafu, Eshrak Al‐Shaibani, Ora Bascom, Leeann Wilson, Carol Chen, Ivan Pašić, Arjun Law, Wilson Lam, Dennis Dong Hwan Kim, Armin Gerbitz, Auro Viswabandya, Jeffrey H. Lipton, Fotios V. Michelis, Jonas Mattsson, Shabbir M.H. Alibhai, Rajat Kumar

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueFrailty in Older Adults
Établissements canadiensUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineCohortHematopoietic cellTransplantationActivities of daily livingHematopoietic stem cell transplantationGerontologyCohort studyProspective cohort studyPhysical therapyInternal medicineStem cellHaematopoiesis

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION Frailty in patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) has a negative impact on survival. The inclusion of frailty evaluations before HCT is highly recommended; however, there is no consensus about the best methodology to evaluate this syndrome. In 2018 our center started a Frailty and Functionality program that involves regularly collecting information on the following eight indices in patients referred for allogeneic HCT (Salas et al., 2021): Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) test, Timed up and Go Test (TUGT), Grip Strength (GS), Self-Health Rated questionnaire (SHR-Q), Fall test, albumin (Alb), and C - reactive protein (CRP). With the recorded measurements of the eight indices and the corresponding validating process, we propose a HCT Frailty Scale. This scale is specifically designed to identify fit, pre-frail, and frail candidates for alloHCT, from better to worst probability of post-transplant survival. METHODS Between June 2018 and December 2020, 338 adults underwent alloHCT at our Institution. Frailty syndrome was evaluated prospectively in all patients at first consultation, using existing resources, after informed consent. It included measurement of the eight indices. The median time to evaluate was 5-6 minutes. Each index was given a value of 0 if normal or 1 (abnormal). Complete data were available for 298 patients that were finally included in the analysis. With this data the HCT Frailty Scale was elaborated as follows. The study cohort was split in two groups, a training cohort with 2/3 (N=200) of the patients, and a validation cohort of 1/3 (N=98), proportional to death outcomes. With the data from the training group we estimated a multivariable Cox model with overall survival (OS) as dependent variable, and the eight referenced indices as explanatory variables. Any normal result was scored 0, and based on the estimated HR coefficient from the Cox model, a proportional weight score was given to each respective index variable in the calculation of the composite HCT Frailty Scale score. The HCT Frailty index was calculated using the following formula: 1.5 *CFS, +1*IADL, +1*GS, + 1.5*TUGT, + 1*SHR-Q, +1*Falls-Test, + 1.5 *Alb, + 2*CRP. As a result, the HCT Frailty Scale goes from 0 to 10.5. The values of the scale were grouped to determine the following three groups of patients: (a) Fit patent: scale score ≤1; (b) Pre-Frail patient: 1< scale score < 5.5; (c) Frail patient: scale score 5.5 (Figure 1). RESULTS Baseline characteristics of the training and validation cohort are shown in Figure 1. Of the 200 patients included in the training cohort, the median age was 58 years (range 19-76 years); 29 (15.85%) had a KPS between 70-80%; and 56 (30.11%) a HCT-CI >3. The elaborated HCT Frailty Scale classified the 200 patients as: (a) 70 (35%) fit patients with an estimated 1-y OS of 83.7%; (b) 97 (48.5%) pre-frail patients with a predicted 1-y OS of 75.6%; and (c) 33 (16.5%) frail patients with an estimated 1-y OS of 52.8%. Of the 33 frail patients, 54.8% had a KPS between 90-100% and 48.5% had an HCT-CI <3 and of the 70 fit patients, 4.8% had a KPS between 70-80% and 24.2% had an HCT-CI ≥ 3. These differences support the hypothesis that frailty does not necessarily correlate with performance and comorbidities. The predictive ability of the HCT Frailty Scale was validated in 98 patients included in the validation cohort. This scale identified (a) 33 (33.7%) fit patients with an expected 1-y OS of 90.3%, (b) 51 (52%) pre-frail patients with an expected 1-y OS of 69.5%, and (c) 14 (14%) frail patients with an estimated 1y OS of 46.2% (Figure 1). CONCLUSION The HCT Frailty Evaluation Scale has been specifically designed to be applied in routine clinical practice and to patients across all ages. The scale ranges from 0 to 10.5 and the score value is calculated as the weighted sum of values of eight indexes evaluated at first consultation. The proposed scale should be of utility to identify frail and pre-frail patients that may benefit from appropriate counselling pre-transplant and individualized interventions to reverse frailty syndrome prior to alloHCT. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Law: Novartis: Consultancy; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Kim: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Paladin: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Meier Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lipton: Bristol Myers Squibb, Ariad, Pfizer, Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Mattsson: MattssonAB medical: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,013

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,021
Tête enseignante GPT0,275
Écart entre enseignants0,254 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetFrailty in Older Adults→Travaux en français237 207→