Admission Frailty Score Are Associated With Increased Risk of Acute Respiratory Failure and Mortality in Burn Patients 50 and Older
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Herein, we assessed the utility of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale (CSHA-CFS) to predict burn-specific outcomes. We hypothesized that frail patients are at greater risk for burn-related complications and require increased healthcare support at discharge. Patients 50 years and older admitted to our institution for burn injuries between July 2009 and June 2019 were included. Demographics, comorbidities, pre-injury functional status, injury and hospitalization information, complications (graft loss, acute respiratory failure, and acute kidney disease [AKI]), mortality, and discharge disposition were collected. Multivariate analyses were performed to assess the association between admission frailty scored using the CSHA-CFS and outcomes. P < .05 was considered significant. Eight-hundred fifty-one patients were included, 697 were not frail and 154 were frail. Controlling for Baux scores, sex, race, mechanism of injury, 2nd and 3rd degree burn surface, and inhalation injury, frailty was associated with acute respiratory failure (OR = 2.599 [1.460-4.628], P = .001) and with mortality (OR = 6.080 [2.316-15.958]; P < .001). Frailty was also associated with discharge to skilled nursing facility, rehabilitation, or long-term acute care facilities (OR = 3.135 [1.784-5.508], P < .001), and to hospice (OR = 8.694 [1.646-45.938], P = .011) when compared to home without healthcare services. Frailty is associated with increased risk of acute respiratory failure, mortality, and requiring increased healthcare support post-discharge. Our data suggest that frailty can be used as a tool to predict morbidity and mortality and for goals of care discussions for the burn patient.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".