Predicting hospital outcomes with the reported edmonton frail scale‐Thai version in orthopaedic older patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To test the ability of the Reported Edmonton Frail Scale-Thai version to predict hospital outcomes compared with standard preoperative assessment measures (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification and the Elixhauser Comorbidity Measure) in older Thai orthopaedic patients. BACKGROUND: Frailty is a common geriatric condition. No previous studies have assessed frailty among orthopaedic patients in Thailand. Effective frailty screening could enhance quality of care. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study in a university hospital. METHODS: Two hundred hospitalised patients, aged 60 years or older and scheduled for orthopaedic surgery, participated in the study. Frailty was evaluated using the Reported Edmonton Frail Scale-Thai version. Multiple Firth logistic regression was used to model the effect of frailty on postoperative complications, postoperative delirium and discharge disposition. Length of stay was examined using Poisson regression. Comparing predictability of the instruments, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and mean squared errors were evaluated. The STROBE guideline was used. RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 72 years; mostly were female, frail and underwent knee, spine and/or hip surgery. Poor health outcomes including postoperative complications, postoperative delirium, and not being discharged to the home were commonly identified. The length of stay varied from three days to more than ten weeks. Frailty was significantly associated with postoperative complications, postoperative delirium and prolonged length of stay. The Reported Edmonton Frail Scale-Thai version revealed good performance for predicting postoperative complications and postoperative delirium and was improved by combining with standard assessments. CONCLUSION: The Reported Edmonton Frail Scale-Thai version, alone or combined with standard assessment, was useful for predicting adverse outcomes in older adults undergoing orthopaedic surgery. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: These findings indicate that nurse professionals should apply culturally sensitive frailty screening to proactively identify patients' risk of frailty, improve care quality and prevent adverse outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".