Frailty and chronic respiratory disease: the need for a multidisciplinary care model.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frailty is a state of increased vulnerability to various health stressors but little information is summarized about frailty in patients with specific chronic respiratory diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), and asthma. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the burden of frailty on patients with chronic respiratory disorders and to discuss the need for multidisciplinary care services. METHODS: PubMed and Cochrane Central databases were systematically reviewed for studies reporting outcomes associated with frailty in COPD, IPF, and asthma. Electronic databases were searched for relevant articles published in English from 2010 up to July 2020. Appraisal was carried out based on the Hierarchy of Evidence Rating System and the GRADE guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 31 articles met all inclusion criteria with 24 of them at level IV, 1 at level V, and 6 at level VI. Frailty is likely to negatively affect quality of life and to increase the risk of mortality, especially in elderly with COPD, IPF and asthma. Each disease has a particular effect on the balance between health status, respiratory impairment and frailty. A greater understanding of frailty phenotype across different ages, as well as in a range of long-term conditions, is of great necessity in both clinical and research settings. Limited conformity was observed between different methodologies and nature of chronic diseases studied, leading to a further difficulty to extract homogeneous information. CONCLUSION: in order to assess real mortality risk, alongside respiratory disease severity and the presence of comorbidities. Health care professionals need knowledge, skills and multidisciplinary collaboration to buffer the impact of frailty on everyday practice.
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 | 0.047 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".