MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088829878 · doi:10.1136/openhrt-2020-001314

Prospective cohort study of elderly patients with coronary artery disease: impact of frailty on quality of life and outcome

2020· article· en· W3088829878 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shouaib Qayyum, Jennifer Rossington, Raj Chelliah, Joseph John, Benjamin J Davidson, Richard Oliver, Dumbor L. Ngaage, Mahmoud Loubani, Miriam J. Johnson, Angela Hoye

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Heart · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProspective cohort studyCohortCoronary artery diseaseDiseaseQuality of life (healthcare)Outcome (game theory)Cohort studyGerontologyInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Elderly, frail patients are often excluded from clinical trials so there is lack of data regarding optimal management when they present with symptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this observational study was to evaluate an unselected elderly population with CAD for the occurrence of frailty, and its association with quality of life (QoL) and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Consecutive patients aged ≥80 years presenting with CAD were prospectively assessed for frailty (Fried frailty phenotype (FFP), Edmonton frailty scale (EFS)), QoL (Short form survey (SF-12)) and comorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)). Patients were re-assessed at 4 months to determine any change in frailty and QoL status as well as the clinical outcome. RESULTS: One hundred fifty consecutive patients with symptomatic CAD were recruited in the study. The mean age was 83.7±3.2 years, 99 (66.0%) were men. The clinical presentation was stable angina in 68 (45.3%), the remainder admitted with an acute coronary syndrome including 21 (14.0%) with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Frailty was present in 28% and 26% by FFP and EFS, respectively, and was associated with a significantly higher CCI (7.5±2.4 in frail, 6.2±2.2 in prefrail, 5.9±1.6 in those without frailty, p=0.005). FFP was significantly related to the physical composite score for QoL, while EFS was significantly related to the mental composite score for QoL (p=0.003). Treatment was determined by the cardiologist: percutaneous coronary intervention in 51 (34%), coronary artery bypass graft surgery in 15 (10%) and medical therapy in 84 (56%). At 4 months, 14 (9.3%) had died. Frail participants had the lowest survival. Cardiovascular symptom status and the mental composite score of QoL significantly improved (52.7±11.5 at baseline vs 55.1±10.6 at follow-up, p=0.04). However, overall frailty status did not significantly change, nor the physical health composite score of QoL (37.2±11.0 at baseline vs 38.5±11.3 at follow-up, p=0.27). CONCLUSIONS: In patients referred to hospital with CAD, frailty is associated with impaired QoL and a high coexistence of comorbidities. Following cardiac treatment, patients had improvement in cardiovascular symptoms and mental component of QoL.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations34
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen HeartSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207