The Prevalence and Prognostic Significance of Frailty in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure Referred for Heart Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frailty is a clinically recognized syndrome of decreased physiological reserve. The heightened state of vulnerability in these patients confers a greater risk of adverse outcomes after even minor stressors. Our aim was to assess the prevalence and prognostic significance of the frailty phenotype in patients referred for heart transplantation. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred or on the waiting list for heart transplantation from March 2013 underwent frailty assessment. Frailty was defined as a positive response to 3 or more of the following 5 components: weak grip strength, slowed walking speed, poor appetite, physical inactivity, and exhaustion. In addition, markers of disease severity were obtained, and all patients underwent cognitive (Montreal Cognitive Assessment) and depression (Depression in Medical Illness-10) screening. RESULTS: One hundred twenty patients (83 men:37 women; age, 53 ± 12 years, range, 16-73 years; left ventricular ejection fraction, 27 ± 14%) underwent frailty assessment. Thirty-nine of 120 patients (33%) were assessed as frail. Frailty was associated with New York Heart Association class IV heart failure, lower body mass index, elevated intracardiac filling pressures, lower cardiac index, anemia, hypoalbuminemia, hyperbilirubinemia, cognitive impairment, and depression (all ρ < 0.05). Frailty was independent of age, sex, heart failure duration, left ventricular ejection fraction, or renal function. Frailty was an independent predictor of increased all-cause mortality: 1 year actuarial survival was 79 ± 5% in the nonfrail group compared with only 54 ± 9% for the frail group (P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty is prevalent among patients with advanced symptomatic heart failure referred for heart transplantation and is associated with increased mortality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".