MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014092003 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.00089

A Computerized Frailty Assessment Tool at Points-of-Care: Development of a Standalone Electronic Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment/Frailty Index (eFI-CGA)

2020· article· en· W3014092003 on OpenAlexafffund
Katayoun Sepehri, McKenzie Braley, Betty Chinda, Macy Zou, Brandon Tang, Grace Park, Antonina Garm, Robert C. McDermid, Kenneth Rockwood, Xiaowei Song

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityFraser HealthSurrey Memorial HospitalSimon Fraser University
FundersSimon Fraser UniversityCanadian Frailty NetworkCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFraser Health AuthorityDalhousie UniversityDoctors of BC
KeywordsComputer scienceOperationalizationSoftwareInterface (matter)Frailty IndexUser interfaceMedicineOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Frailty can be operationalized using a Frailty Index (FI) based on the accumulation of health deficits; items under health evaluation in the well-established Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) have been used to generate an FI-CGA. Traditionally, constructing the FI-CGA has relied on paper-based recording and manual data processing. As this can be time-consuming and error-prone, it limits widespread uptake of this proven type of frailty assessment. Here, we report the development of an electronic tool, the eFI-CGA, for use on personal computers by frontline healthcare providers, to collect CGA data and automate FI-CFA calculation. The ultimate goal is to support early identification and management of frailty at points-of-care, and make uptake in Electronic Medical Records (EMR) feasible and transparent. Methods: An electronic CGA (eCGA) form was implemented to operate on Microsoft’s WinForms platform and coded using C# programming language. A user-friendly interface and secured data saving methods were implemented. The software was debugged using systematically designed simulation data, addressing different logic, syntax, and application errors, and then with clinical assessment. The user manual and manual scoring were used as ground truth to compare eFI-CGA input and automated eFI score calculations. Frontline health-provider user feedback was incorporated to improve the end-user experience. Results: The eFI-CGA software tool was developed and optimized for use on personal computers. Compared to known scores, the software tool generated eFI-CGA scores with 100% accuracy to four decimal places. The eFI-CGA allowed secure data storage and retrieval of multiple types, including user input, completed eCGA form, coded items, and calculated eFI-CGA scores. It also permitted recording of actions requiring clinical follow-up, facilitating care planning. Application bugs were identified and resolved at various stages of the implementation, resulting in efficient system performance. Discussion: Accurate, robust, and reliable computerized frailty assessments are needed to promote effective frailty assessment and management, as a key tool in health care systems facing up to frailty. Our research has enabled the delivery of the standalone eFI-CGA software technology to empower effective frailty assessment and management by various healthcare providers at points-of-care, facilitating integrated care of older adults.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207