MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080963338 · doi:10.1111/jgs.16788

Development of a Frailty Index from Routine Hospital Data in Perioperative and Critical Care

2020· article· en· W3080963338 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jai N. Darvall, Kate Greentree, Joel Loth, Tony Bose, Anurika De Silva, Sabine Braat, Wen Kwang Lim, David Story

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeConfidence intervalOdds ratioIntensive care unitEmergency medicinePerioperativeProspective cohort studyPopulationQuartileInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Frailty is common in surgical and intensive care unit (ICU) populations, yet it is not routinely measured. Frailty indices are able to quantify this condition across a range of health deficits. We aimed to develop a frailty index (FI) from routinely collected hospital data in a surgical and ICU population. DESIGN: Prospective observational single-center cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary referral metropolitan Australian hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 336 individuals aged 65 and older undergoing surgery or aged 50 and older admitted to the ICU. MEASUREMENTS: Routine admission health data were used to derive an FI comprising 36 health deficits. We examined the FI correlation with existing frailty tools (Clinical Frailty Scale [CFS] and Edmonton Frail Scale [EFS]) and assessed its predictive ability for negative outcomes including 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Median FI was .17 (interquartile range [IQR]) = .10-.24) for ICU patients and .17 (IQR = .11-.25) for surgical patients; maximum FI was .58, and 25% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 10.4-29.6) of patients overall were diagnosed with frailty (FI score ≥.25). Correlation was strong between the FI and the EFS: ρ = .76 (95% CI = .70-.83) for ICU patients and .71 (95% CI = .64-.78) for surgical patients, and the CFS was .77 (95% CI = .70-.84) for ICU patients and .72 (95% CI = .65-.79) for surgical patients. The FI had good discriminative ability for prediction of 30-day mortality in ICU patients (multivariate odds ratio for each increase in FI of .1 = 2.04 [95% CI = 1.19-3.48]), comparable with the performance of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III score (ICU patients) and the Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity score (surgical patients). CONCLUSION: It is feasible to construct an FI from hospital admission data in a cohort of critically ill and surgical patients.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.320
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietySame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207