Predicting readmission and death after hospital discharge: a comparison of conventional frailty measurement with an electronic health record-based score
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: frailty measurement may identify patients at risk of decline after hospital discharge, but many measures require specialist review and/or additional testing. OBJECTIVE: to compare validated frailty tools with routine electronic health record (EHR) data at hospital discharge, for associations with readmission or death. DESIGN: observational cohort study. SETTING: hospital ward. SUBJECTS: consented cardiology inpatients ≥70 years old within 24 hours of discharge. METHODS: patients underwent Fried, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), PRISMA-7 and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) assessments. An EHR risk score was derived from the proportion of 31 possible frailty markers present. Electronic follow-up was completed for a primary outcome of 90-day readmission or death. Secondary outcomes were mortality and days alive at home ('home time') at 12 months. RESULTS: in total, 186 patients were included (79 ± 6 years old, 64% males). The primary outcome occurred in 55 (30%) patients. Fried (hazard ratio [HR] 1.47 per standard deviation [SD] increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-1.81, P < 0.001), CFS (HR 1.24 per SD increase, 95% CI 1.01-1.51, P = 0.04) and EHR risk scores (HR 1.35 per SD increase, 95% CI 1.02-1.78, P = 0.04) were independently associated with the primary outcome after adjustment for age, sex and co-morbidity, but the SPPB and PRISMA-7 were not. The EHR risk score was independently associated with mortality and home time at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: frailty measurement at hospital discharge identifies patients at risk of poorer outcomes. An EHR-based risk score appeared equivalent to validated frailty tools and may be automated to screen patients at scale, but this requires further validation.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".