Frailty Prevalence and Characteristics in Older Adults with Hematologic Cancer: a Descriptive Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the prevalence of frailty in older patients with hematologic cancer and assessed the association between older patients' characteristics and frailty. METHODS: This descriptive study enrolled 90 older patients undergoing treatment for hematological malignancies at an oncology hospital. Frailty was assessed with the Edmonton Frailty Scale as not frail (0-4), apparently vulnerable (5-6), mildly frail (7-8), moderately frail (9-10), and severely frail (11-17). The association of frailty and older patient characteristics and diagnosis was assessed by logistic regression. RESULTS: The prevalence of frailty (mild, moderately, and severely) was 42.2%, and "apparently vulnerable" frailty was 60%. The mean scale score was 5.59 ± 3.13. Frailty was more prevalent in patients who were ≥75 years of age, had ≥4 children, were diagnosed with leukemia, and were diagnosed for ≥2 years. Gender, diagnosis, and employment were factors associated with the presence of frailty. Female gender and lack of employment were factors associated with a high risk of frailty. A diagnosis of multiple myeloma was associated with a low risk of frailty. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of frailty was high in older patients. Female and unemployed patients were at high risk for frailty. Frailty characteristics of older patients with hematologic cancer highlighted the need for comprehensive geriatric assessment and frailty screening, provided prevalence and characteristics of frailty in this group of patients during treatment, and highlighted the need for holistic care approach.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".