Frailty is associated with increased risk of cirrhosis disease progression and death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Liver Frailty Index (LFI) is a well-studied tool that evaluates frailty in patients with cirrhosis. Consisting of grip strength, chair stands, and balance testing, the LFI has been associated with increased mortality in patients awaiting liver transplant. We aimed to extend our understanding of frailty in cirrhosis by exploring the relationship between the LFI and the risk of (1) cirrhosis progression, (2) mortality, and (3) unplanned hospitalizations, in both compensated and decompensated disease. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Adult patients with cirrhosis from four centers in North America and one in India were included. Frailty was measured at baseline using the LFI and categorized as robust (LFI < 3.2), prefrail (LFI 3.2-4.5), and frail (LFI > 4.5). Progression of cirrhosis was defined by an increase in clinical stage, ranging from 1 to 5, from baseline using the D'Amico classification. Factors associated with progression, mortality, and hospitalizations were evaluated using multivariate regression models, with transplant as a competing risk. In total, 822 patients with cirrhosis were included. Average Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was 15.5 ± 6.0. In patients with compensated cirrhosis, being frail versus robust was associated with increased risk of progression to the next cirrhosis stage or to death (HR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.14-5.29) and with an increased risk of unplanned hospitalizations (2.32; 95% CI, 1.13-4.79), after adjusting for age, sex, and MELD score. Similar HRs were observed in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty was an independent predictor of cirrhosis progression or death and unplanned hospitalization across patients with compensated and decompensated cirrhosis. Future studies are needed to evaluate the possibility of slowing cirrhosis disease progression by reversing or preventing frailty.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".