P4697Prognosis impact of frailty assessed by the Edmonton Frail Scale in the setting of acute coronary syndrome in the elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Elderly patients represent a large proportion of patients admitted for Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). Whether frailty, defined as a biological syndrome that reflects a state of decreased physiological reserve and vulnerability to stressors, may impact the clinical outcomes in this population remains unclear. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of frailty and its impact on all-cause mortality in patients aged ≥80 years admitted for ACS. Methods: This prospective observational study was conducted among patients aged 80 or older admitted in a tertiary hospital for ACS. Frailty was assessed using the Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) which provides a score ranging from 0 (not frail) to 17 (very frail). Population was divided into 3 classes: [0–3] EFS-score, [4–6] EFS-score, and [>7] EFS-score. Results: 236 patients were included with a mean follow-up duration of 470 days. The mean age was 85.9 years. 75 patients died during follow-up period.119 subjects (50.4%) had a [0–3] EFS-score, 68 patients (28.8%) had a [4–6] EFS-score and 49 patients (20.8%) had a [7] EFS-score. All-cause mortality rate was 17.7% in the [0–3] EFS-score group, 35.3% in the [4–6] EFS-score group and 61.2% in the [7] EFS-score group, (p<0.001). After multivariate analysis, frailty status remained associated with all-cause mortality: HR was 1.59 (95% CI [0.78–3.26]) within the [4–6] EFS-score group, and HR was 4.03 (95% CI [2.02–8.04]) within the [7] EFS-score group.
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 | 0.000 | 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".