MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047550207 · doi:10.1111/ajag.12829

FRAIL scale: Predictive validity and diagnostic test accuracy

2020· article· en· W3047550207 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Q Thompson, Olga Theou, Graeme Tucker, Robert Adams, Renuka Visvanathan

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal on Ageing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersResthaven Incorporated
KeywordsYouden's J statisticReceiver operating characteristicScale (ratio)MedicinePredictive validityPositive predicative valueTest (biology)StatisticsGerontologyPredictive valueInternal medicineMathematicsClinical psychologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the predictive validity of the FRAIL scale for mortality, and diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) against the frailty phenotype (FP). MEASUREMENT: Frailty was measured in 846 community-dwelling adults (mean age 74.3 [SD 6.3] years, 54.8% female) using a modified FRAIL scale and modified FP. Mortality was matched to death records. RESULTS: The FRAIL scale demonstrated significant predictive validity for mortality up to 10 years (Frail adjHR: 2.60, P < .001). DTA findings were acceptable for specificity (86.8%) and Youden index (0.50), but not sensitivity (63.6%), or area under the receiver operator curve (auROC) (0.75). DTA estimates were more acceptable when a cut-point of ≥2 characteristics was used rather than ≥3 in the primary DTA analysis. CONCLUSION: The FRAIL scale is a valid predictor of mortality. DTA estimates depend on FRAIL scale cut-point used. This instrument is a potentially useful frailty screening tool.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations81
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian Journal on AgeingSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207