Association of frailty and physical function in patients with non-dialysis CKD: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frailty is a condition characterized by a decline in physical function and functional capacity. Common symptoms of frailty, such as weakness and exhaustion, are prevalent in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The increased vulnerability of frail patients with coexisting CKD may place them at a heightened risk of encountering additional health complications. The purpose of this systematic review was to explore the link between frailty, CKD and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We searched for cross sectional and prospective studies in the general population and in the CKD population indexed in EMBASE, Pubmed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane and Ageline examining the association between frailty and CKD and those relating frailty in patients with CKD to clinical outcomes. RESULTS: We screened 5,066 abstracts and retrieved 108 studies for full text review. We identified 7 studies associating frailty or physical function to CKD. From the 7 studies, we identified only two studies that related frailty in patients with CKD to a clinical outcome. CKD was consistently associated with increasing frailty or reduced physical function [odds ratios (OR) 1.30 to 3.12]. In patients with CKD, frailty was associated with a greater than two-fold higher risk of dialysis and/or death [OR from 2.0 to 5.88]. CONCLUSIONS: CKD is associated with a higher risk of frailty or diminished physical function. Furthermore, the presence of frailty in patients with CKD may lead to a higher risk of mortality. Further research must be conducted to understand the mechanisms of frailty in CKD and to confirm its association with clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".