Frailty is strongly associated with self-reported symptom burden among patients with cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although patients with cirrhosis often experience debilitating symptoms, few are referred for palliative care. Frailty is increasingly incorporated in liver transplantation evaluation and has been associated with symptom burden in other populations. We hypothesized that frail patients with cirrhosis are highly symptomatic and thus are likely to benefit from palliative care. METHODS: Patients with cirrhosis undergoing outpatient liver transplantation evaluation completed the Liver Frailty Index (grip strength, chair stands and balance) and a composite of validated measures including the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, distress and quality of life (QOL) measures. RESULTS: Of 233 patients (median age 61 years, 43% women), 22% were robust, 59% prefrail and 19% frail. Overall, 38% of patients reported ≥1 severe symptoms based on preestablished Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale criteria. Higher frailty categories were associated with increased prevalence of pain, dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, poor appetite, drowsiness, depression and poor well-being (test for trend, all P < 0.05). Frail patients were also more likely to report psychological distress and poor QOL (all P < 0.01). In univariate analysis, each 0.5 increase in liver frailty index was associated with 44% increased odds of experiencing ≥1 severe symptoms [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2-1.7, P < 0.001], which persisted (odds ratio, 1.3, 95% CI, 1.0-1.6, P = 0.004) even after adjusting for Model for End Stage Liver Disease-Sodium, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and age. CONCLUSION: In patients with cirrhosis, frailty is strongly associated with physical/psychological symptoms, including pain and depression and poor QOL. Frail patients with cirrhosis may benefit from palliative care co-management to address symptoms and improve 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 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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".