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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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