A simple test‐based frailty index to predict survival among cancer patients with an unplanned hospitalization: An observational cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frailty is a state of increased vulnerability to stressors, and predicts risk of adverse outcomes, such as mortality. Frailty can be defined by a frailty index (FI) using an accumulation of deficits approach. An FI comprised of 20 items derived from our previously studied test-based frailty index (TBFI) and an additional 33 survey-based elements sourced from the standard CGA was developed to evaluate if predictive validity of survival was improved. METHODS: One hundred eighty-nine cancer patients during acute hospitalization were consented between September 2018 and May 2019. Frailty scores were calculated, and patients were categorized into four groups: non-frail (0-0.2), mildly frail (0.2-0.3), moderately frail (0.3-0.4), and severely frail (>0.4). Patients were followed for 1-year to assess FI and TBFI prediction of survival. Area under the curve (AUC) statistics from ROC analyses were compared for the FI versus TBFI. RESULTS: Increasing frailty was similarly associated with increased risk of mortality (HR, 4.5 [95% CI, 2.519-8.075] and HR, 4.1 [95%CI, 1.692-9.942]) and the likelihood of death at 6 months was about 11-fold (odds ratio, 10.9 [95% CI, 3.97-33.24]) and 9.73-fold (95% CI, 2.85-38.50) higher for severely frail patients compared to non-frail patients for FI and TBFI, respectively. This association was independent of age and type of cancer. The FI and TBFI were predictive of survival for older and younger cancer patients with no significant differences between models in discriminating survival (FI AUC, 0.747 [95% CI, 0.6772-0.8157] and TBFI AUC, 0.724 [95% CI, 0.6513-0.7957]). CONCLUSIONS: The TBFI was predictive of survival, and the addition of an in-person assessment (FI) did not greatly improve predictive validity. Increasing frailty, as measured by a TBFI, resulted in a meaningfully increased risk of mortality and may be well-suited for screening of hospitalized cancer patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".