A classification tree to assist with routine scoring of the Clinical Frailty Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) was originally developed to summarise a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and yield a care plan. Especially since COVID-19, the CFS is being used widely by health care professionals without training in frailty care as a resource allocation tool and for care rationing. CFS scoring by inexperienced raters might not always reflect expert judgement. For these raters, we developed a new classification tree to assist with routine CFS scoring. Here, we test that tree against clinical scoring. OBJECTIVE/METHODS: we examined agreement between the CFS classification tree and CFS scoring by novice raters (clerks/residents), and the CFS classification tree and CFS scoring by experienced raters (geriatricians) in 115 older adults (mean age 78.0 ± 7.3; 47% females) from a single centre. RESULTS: the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the CFS classification tree was 0.833 (95% CI: 0.768-0.882) when compared with the geriatricians' CFS scoring. In 93%, the classification tree rating was the same or differed by at most one level with the expert geriatrician ratings. The ICC was 0.805 (0.685-0.883) when CFS scores from the classification tree were compared with the clerk/resident scores; 88.5% of the ratings were the same or ±1 level. CONCLUSIONS: a classification tree for scoring the CFS can help with reliable scoring by relatively inexperienced raters. Though an incomplete remedy, a classification tree is a useful support to decision-making and could be used to aid routine scoring of the CFS.
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 | 0.025 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".