MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4213081604 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwab049.222

A223 THE CHAIR STAND TEST IS A RELIABLE FRAILTY METRIC FOR PREDICTING WAITLIST MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY IN PATIENTS WITH CIRRHOSIS

2022· article· en· W4213081604 on OpenAlexaffabout
V V Nguyen, S Wang, R. M. L. Whitlock, Chunyan Xu, Sunil Taneja, Shriyansh S Singh, Juan Abraldes, Kelly W. Burak, R.J. Bailey, Jennifer C. Lai, Puneeta Tandon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alexandra HospitalCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCirrhosisHazard ratioLiver diseasePhysical therapyInternal medicineGerontologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Frailty is defined as a clinical state of increased vulnerability to health and age associated stressors. The liver frailty index (LFI), composed of grip strength, chair stand and balance testing, is an accepted predictor of morbidity and mortality in cirrhosis. With the need for COVID-19 related social distancing, many appointments are being carried out virtually. The chair stand subcomponent of the LFI has the potential to be evaluated virtually, with a high reliability as compared to in-person testing noted in other disease populations. Aims To determine if the chair stand test is an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Methods 822 adult patients with cirrhosis were prospectively enrolled from five centers (3 in Canada, 1 in the United States, and 1 in India). Inclusion criteria included adult patients with cirrhosis. 787 of these patients completed a chair stand test at baseline, measured as the time (seconds) a patient takes to rise from sitting with their arms folded across their chest five times (measured in-person). The times were divided into 3 categories: >15 seconds, between 10 and 15 seconds, and <10 seconds. Patients who could not complete 5 chair stands were classified in the >15 seconds category. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcome was unplanned all-cause hospital admission. Fine-Gray proportional hazard regression models were used to evaluate the association between the chair stand time and the outcomes. We adjusted for baseline age, sex, and MELD score and accounted for liver transplantation as a competing risk. Cumulative incidence functions were used to create a graphical representation of the survival analysis. Results Patients were divided into three groups: group 1, <10 seconds (n = 276); group 2, 10–15 seconds (n = 290); and group 3, >15 seconds (n = 221). Mortality was increased in group 3 in comparison to group 1 (HR 3.21, 95% CI: 2.16–4.78, p<0.001). Similarly, the hazard of non-elective hospitalizations was higher in group 3 in comparison to group 1 (HR 2.24, 95% CI: 1.73–2.91, p<0.001). Overall, patients with chair stand times greater than 15 seconds had increased all-cause mortality (HR 2.78, 95% CI 2.01–3.83, p<0.001) and non-elective hospitalizations (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.48–2.29, p<0.001) when compared to patients with times less than 15 seconds. Conclusions A time to complete 5 chair stands of >15 seconds predicts morbidity and mortality in patients with cirrhosis. This test shows promise as a frailty measure that could be evaluated over a virtual platform. Funding Agencies None

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicNutrition and Health in Aging→French-language works237,207→