MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126535578 · doi:10.1002/ehf2.13254

The Impact of Frailty According to Clinical Frailty Scale on Clinical Outcome in Patients with Heart Failure

2021· article· en· W3126535578 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueESC Heart Failure · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureEjection fractionInternal medicineBody mass indexCohortDementiaMultivariate analysisCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: There is currently no gold standard in evaluating frailty in patients with heart failure (HF), and the prognostic value of frailty according to the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) on mortality in patients with HF is still unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among consecutive 596 patients after their discharge from HF in Kokura Memorial Hospital (Kitakyushu, Japan) during 2015, their frailty at discharge was assessed according to CFS. Patients were classified into three groups: low (N = 232, 38.9%), intermediate (N = 230, 38.6%), and high (N = 134, 22.5%). The primary endpoint was defined as 2 year all-cause death. The mean age was 76.6 ± 10.1 years, and 55.3% were men in entire cohort. There were significant differences in age, living environment, and dementia among low, intermediate, and high CFS groups. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and co-morbidities such as severe renal failure and severe anaemia tended to increase with frailty severity, while body mass index (BMI) and albumin level tended to decrease with frailty severity. Two year cumulative incidences of all-cause death for the three groups were 12.8%, 25.4%, and 52.7% (P < 0.001), respectively. This significant difference in the risk for all-cause death among the CFS groups was driven by the risk for cardiac (8.6%, 14.2%, and 31.0%, respectively, P < 0.001) and non-cardiac death (4.6%, 13.0%, and 31.4%, respectively, P < 0.001). The multivariate analysis showed that high frailty was independently associated with all-cause death (intermediate CFS group: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.43, 95% confidence interval, 0.86-2.36, P = 0.16; high CFS group: adjusted hazard ratio, 3.90, 95% confidence interval, 2.32-6.55, P < 0.001), and this result was consistent, irrespective of stratification based on age, sex, BMI, and LVEF without significant interaction. CONCLUSIONS: The simple CFS tool was successful in predicting the risk for all-cause death in patients with HF, and frailty according to CFS was independently associated with all-cause death irrespective of stratification based on age, sex, BMI, and LVEF without significant interaction. The CFS is a valuable prognostic tool in clinical settings.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.348 · 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