The assessment of frailty in older people in acute care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Develop a measure of frailty for older acute inpatients to be performed by non-geriatricians. METHOD: The Reported Edmonton Frail Scale (REFS) was adapted from the Edmonton Frail Scale for use with Australian acute inpatients. With acute patients aged over 70 years admitted to an Australian teaching hospital, we validated REFS against the Geriatrician's Clinical Impression of Frailty (GCIF), measures of cognition, comorbidity and function, and assessed inter-rater reliability. RESULTS: REFS was moderately correlated with GCIF (n = 105, R = 0.61, P < 0.01), Mini-Mental State Examination impairment (n = 61, R = 0.49, P < 0.001), Charlson Comorbidity Index (n = 59, R = 0.51, P < 0.001) and Katz Daily Living Scale (n = 59, R = 0.51, P < 0.001). Inter-rater reliability of REFS administered by two researchers without medical training was excellent (kappa = 0.84, n = 31). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of older acute inpatients, REFS is a valid, reliable test of frailty, and may be a valuable research tool to assess the impact of frailty on prognosis and response to therapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".