The impact of frailty and sarcopenia on patient outcomes after complex spine surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Frailty and sarcopenia represent a state of increased fragility and decreased reserve, and both have been associated with worse outcomes after surgery. The present review focuses on the definitions and measurement tools used to assess frailty and sarcopenia in patients with spinal disorder, and the relationships between frailty, sarcopenia, and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing complex spine surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Complex spine surgery is associated with a high rate of adverse events when using a validated, prospective data collection system. Recent studies have demonstrated that patients with spine surgery with frailty and sarcopenia have a higher risk of adverse events, although this relationship varies depending on the measurement tool and specific population studied. Both general and specific frailty assessment tools have been used in the spine surgery population, however the optimal tool is not known. Spinal disorders such as lumbar stenosis contribute to the frailty phenotype, and may be reversible with surgery. SUMMARY: Frailty and sarcopenia are increasingly recognized as important predictors of adverse outcomes after complex spine surgery. The optimal tool to measure frailty and sarcopenia in patients with spinal disorders remains unclear, and the role of surgery as an intervention to reverse frailty requires further investigation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".