Postoperative Recovery in Frail, Pre‐frail, and Non‐frail Elderly Patients Following Abdominal Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to explore the association between frailty and surgical recovery over a 6-month period, in elderly patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery. METHODS: A total of 144 patients were categorized as frail, pre-frail, and non-frail based on five criteria: weight loss, exhaustion, weakness, slowness, and low activity. Recovery to preoperative functional status (activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL)), cognition, quality of life, and mental health was assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. A repeated measure logistic regression was used to analyze the effect of frailty on recovery over time. The effect of frailty on hospitalization outcomes was also evaluated. RESULTS: Mean age was 78 ± 5 years with 17.4% of patients categorized as frail, 60.4% pre-frail, and 22.2% non-frail. At 6 months, the percent of patients who had recovered to preoperative values were: ADL 90%; IADL 76%; cognition 75.5%; mental health 66%; and quality of life 70%. While more frail patients experienced adverse hospitalization outcomes and fewer had recovered to preoperative functional status, these differences were not found to be statistically significant. Overall, frailty status was not significantly associated with the trajectory of recovery or hospitalization outcomes. CONCLUSION: Strong, institutional commitment to quality surgical care, as well as appropriate strategies for older patients, may have mitigated the impact of frailty on recovery. Further research is needed to examine the role of frailty in the surgical recovery process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".