The Relationship Between Frailty and the Subjective Decision to Conduct a Goals of Care Discussion With Burned Elders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Best practices are to conduct an early discussion of goals of care (GoC) after injury in the elderly, but this intervention is inconsistently applied. We hypothesized that a frail appearance was a factor in the decision to conduct a GoC discussion after thermal injury. A retrospective review was performed of all burn survivors aged ≥ 65 years at our American Burn Association (ABA)-verified level 1 burn center between April 02, 2009, and December 30, 2014. Demographic information included age, gender, mechanism of injury, percentage TBSA burned, revised Baux score, patient/physician racial discordance, documented GoC discussion (as defined within the electronic medical record), length of stay (LOS), and disposition. One rater retrospectively assigned clinical frailty scores to patients using the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Criteria, which ranged from 1 (very fit) to 7 (severely frail). Ordinal logistic regression was performed. Demographics for the cohort of 126 subjects were (mean ± SD): age = 75.5 ± 7.7 years, %TBSA burned = 11.9% ± 7.2, revised Baux = 87.8 ± 10.2, hospital LOS (days) = 14.9 ± 13.7, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) LOS (days) = 6.2 ± 1.2, frailty score = 4.1 ± 1.1. Overall, 72% of geriatric survivors had a favorable discharge disposition. GoC discussions occurred in 25% of patients. GoC discussion (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.54-7.60) and an unfavorable disposition (OR, 9.01; 95% CI, 3.91-20.78) were associated with greater predicted odds of receiving a higher ordered frailty score. Our results suggest that, even in the absence of a formal diagnosis, a frail appearance may influence a provider's decision to perform GoC discussions after severe thermal injury.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".