Developing a Primary Care EMR-based Frailty Definition using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionFrailty is a geriatric syndrome that is predictive of heightened vulnerability for disability, hospitalization, and mortality. Annually an estimated 250,000 frail Canadians die, and this estimate is expected to double in the next 40 years, as Canadians grow older. Currently there is no single accepted clinical definition of frailty.
 Objectives and ApproachThe objective of this study was to develop an operational definition of frailty using machine learning that can be applied to a primary care electronic medical record (EMR) database.
 The Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN) is a pan-Canadian network of primary care practices that collect de-identified patient information (such as encounter diagnoses, health conditions, and laboratory data) from EMRs.
 780 patients from CPCSSN have were randomly selected and assessed by physicians using the Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (as frail or not frail), and their clinical characteristics from CPCSSN used to develop the definition using machine-learning.
 ResultsA total of 8,044 clinical features were extracted from these tables: billing, problem list, encounter diagnosis, labs, medications and referrals. A chi-squared automatic interaction detector (CHAID) approach was selected as the best approach. The bootstrapping process used a cost matrix that prioritized high sensitivity and positive predictive value. 10-fold cross validation was used for validity measures. Key features factored into the algorithm included: diagnosis of dementia (ICD-9 code 290), medications furosemide and vitamins, and use of key word “obstruction” within the billing table. The validation measures with 95% confidence intervals are as follows: sensitivity of 28% (95% CI: 21% to 36%), specificity of 94% (95% CI: 93% to 96%), positive predictive value of 53% (95% CI: 42% to 64%), negative predictive value of 86% (95% CI: 83% to 88%).
 Conclusion/ImplicationsNo other primary care specific frailty screening tools have sufficient validity. These results suggest heterogeneous diseases require clearly defined features and potentially more sophisticated algorithms to account for heterogeneity. Further research utilizing continuous features and continuous frailty scores may be more suitable in the creation of a case detection algorithm.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".