Edmonton frailty scale score predicts postoperative delirium: a retrospective cohort analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frailty has been associated with postoperative delirium (POD). Studies suggest that the Fried phenotype has a stronger association with POD than the Edmonton Frailty Scale (EFS) criteria. Although phenotypic frailty is recognized as a good predictor of delirium, the EFS has higher ratings for feasibility in the surgical setting. Thus, our aim was to determine the association between EFS-assessed vulnerability and POD in an elective surgical population of older adults. A secondary aim was to determine which domains assessed by the EFS were closely associated with POD. METHODS: After IRB approval was received, electronic medical records of surgical patients at our institution were downloaded from 12/1/2018 to 3/1/2020. Inclusion criteria included age ≥ 65 years, preoperative EFS assessment within 6 months of surgery, elective surgery not scheduled for intensive care unit (ICU) stay but followed by at least 1 day postoperative stay, and at least two in-hospital evaluations with the 4 A's test (arousal, attention, abbreviated mental test-4, acute change [4AT]) on the surgical ward. Vulnerability was determined by EFS score ≥ 6. Patients were stratified into two groups according to highest postoperative 4AT score: 0-3 (no POD) and ≥ 4 (POD). Odds of POD associated with EFS score ≥ 6 were evaluated by using logistic regression adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: The dataset included 324 patients. Vulnerability was associated with higher incidence of POD (p = 0.0007, Fisher's exact). EFS ≥6 was consistently associated with POD in all bivariate models. Vulnerability predicted POD in multivariable modeling (OR = 3.5, 95% CI 1.1 to 11.5). Multivariable analysis of EFS domains revealed an overall trend in which higher scores per domain had a higher odds for POD. The strongest association occurred with presence of incontinence (OR = 3.8, 95% CI 1.2 to 11.0). CONCLUSIONS: EFS criteria for vulnerability predict POD in older, non-ICU patients undergoing elective surgery.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".