The impact of frailty in older women undergoing pelvic floor reconstructive surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE AND OBJECTIVE: Women ≥ 65 years old commonly undergo pelvic surgery but are often not screened for coexisting frailty, the presence of which increases the risk of postoperative complications. In the absence of a current consensus, the objective of this review is to discuss the incorporation of a frailty assessment into the work-up of women undergoing pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. METHODS: This is a review of the literature, focusing on measurements of frailty including the Edmonton Frail Scale, FRAIL scale, Groningen Frailty Indicator, frailty phenotype, Tilburg Frailty Indicator, a 70-item frailty index, Mini-Cog score, Charlson comorbidity index, timed up and go test, and life-space assessment. Their use in the perioperative management of older women undergoing pelvic floor reconstructive surgery will be discussed. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Understanding the concept of frailty and how it may affect surgical decisions and outcomes is essential. The timed up and go test, life space assessment and Mini-Cog assessment at a minimum should be considered preoperatively in patients over the age of 65 years old planning pelvic floor or elective surgery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".