Frailty and Outcome in Elderly Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frailty is superior to chronological age as a predictor of outcome. The Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) is a simple valid measure of frailty, covering multiple important domains, with scores ranging from 0 (not frail) to 17 (very frail). The purpose of this pilot study was to assess the EFS in a group of elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: The EFS was administered to 183 consecutive patients with ACS aged ≥ 65 years admitted to a single centre in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. RESULTS: Scores ranged from 0-13. Patients with higher EFS scores were older, with more comorbidities, longer lengths of stay (EFS 0-3: mean, 7.0 days; EFS 4-6: mean, 9.7 days; and EFS ≥ 7: mean, 12.7 days; P = 0.03), and decreased procedure use. Crude mortality rates at 1 year were 1.6% for EFS 0-3, 7.7% for EFS 4-6, and 12.7% for EFS ≥ 7 (P = 0.05). After adjusting for baseline risk differences using a "burden of illness" score, the hazard ratio for mortality for EFS ≥ 7 compared with EFS 0-3 was 3.49 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-7.61; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The EFS is associated with increased comorbidity, longer lengths of stay, and decreased procedure use. After adjustment for burden of illness, the highest frailty category is independently associated with mortality in elderly patients with ACS. Further work is needed to determine whether the use of a validated frailty instrument would better delineate medical decision making in this important, often disadvantaged population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".