Frailty Is Associated With Mortality in Patients Aged 50 Years and Older
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent evidence indicates that increased frailty is associated with increased mortality in patients with burn over the age of 65 years. However, the effect of frailty may not be restricted to those over the age of 65 years. We hypothesize that admission frailty is associated with mortality in patients with burn ≥50 years of age. We performed a 5-year (2008-2013) retrospective review of patients with acute burn aged 50 years or older. Data collected included demographics, injury characteristics, outcomes, and discharge disposition. Frailty scores (FS) were calculated using the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale. Values are expressed as mean ± SD. About 502 patients with a mean age of 63.5 ± 10.7 years were ansalyzed. Mean TBSA was 11.7 ± 14.1%, 47 patients (9.4%) died, and mean FS was 3.7 ± 1.2 (7 being worst and 1 best). Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated an independent association between mortality and FS of ≥5 (odds ratio [OR], 1.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3 to 2.8). Patients who were ≥65-years-old had significantly higher FS (4.2 ± 1.2 vs 3.5 ± 1.1), and more deaths (26 vs 21 patients). Multivariate logistic regression revealed that increased admission FS is associated with increased mortality to a greater extent in the 50- to 65-year-old group (age 50-65 years: OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.4 to 4.6; age ≥ 65 years: OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.003 to 2.7). FS on admission allow for an improved assessment of preinjury physiological condition in patients with burn aged ≥50 years. Poor preinjury physiological fitness is associated with increased risk of death in patients with burn aged ≥50 years.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".