The incremental predictive value of frailty measures in elderly patients undergoing cardiac surgery: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging evidence demonstrates that frailty measures can predict adverse outcomes after cardiac procedures. Our objectives were to examine whether the inclusion of frailty measures adds incremental predictive value to existing surgical risk prediction models in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and to evaluate the reporting and methods of studies that investigated the prediction of frailty measures in cardiology. The inclusion of frailty measures adds incremental predictive value on existing perioperative risk-scoring systems. We systematically searched the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases for relevant studies. Studies were included according to predefined inclusion criteria. The quality of included studies was appraised using the QUADAS-2 tool. Data were extracted and synthesized according to predefined methods. Twelve studies were included in the analysis. Included studies demonstrated the incremental predictive value of frailty measures on existing surgical risk models for mortality, but the predictive value of frailty measures alone was not consistent across literature. Few studies that investigated the predictive ability of frailty measures reported all important model performance measures. When comparing the predictive value of frailty measures with existing models, few studies reported if the frailty measurement was separately performed from the existing perioperative risk assessment. The addition of frailty measures to the existing perioperative risk models improved the prediction performance for mortality, but the incorporation of frailty assessment into perioperative risk assessment requires further evidence before making health policy recommendations.
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 | 0.008 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".