Validation of the self-reported domains of the Edmonton Frail Scale in patients 65 years of age and older
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In the era of virtual care, self-reported tools are beneficial for preoperative assessments and facilitating postoperative planning. We have previously reported the use of the Edmonton Frailty Scale (EFS) as a valid preoperative assessment tool. OBJECTIVE: We wished to validate the self-reported domains of the EFS (srEFS) by examining its association with loss of independence (LOI) and mortality. METHODS: This is a post-hoc analysis of a single-institution observational study of patients 65 years of age or older undergoing multi-specialty surgical procedures and assessed with the EFS in the preoperative setting. Exploratory data analysis was used to determine the threshold for identifying frailty using the srEFS. Procedures were classified using the Operative Stress Score (OSS) scored 1 to 5 (lowest to highest). Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) was utilized to risk-adjust. LOI was described as requiring more support at discharge and mortality was defined as death occurring up to 30 days following surgery. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine the ability of the srEFS to predict the outcomes of interest in relation to the EFS. RESULTS: Five hundred thirty-five patients were included. Exploratory analysis confirmed best positive predictive value for srEFS was greater or equal to 5. Overall, 113 (21 percent) patients were considered high risk for frailty (HRF) and 179 (33 percent) patients had an OSS greater or equal to 5. LOI occurred in 7 percent (38 patients) and the mortality rate was 4 percent (21 patients). ROC analysis showed that the srEFS performed similar to the standard EFS with no difference in discriminatory thresholds for predicting LOI and mortality. Examination of the domains of the EFS not included in the srEFS demonstrated a lack of association between cognitive decline and the outcomes of interest. However, functional status assessed with either the Get up and Go (EFS only) or self-reported ADLs was independently associated with increased risk for LOI. CONCLUSION: This study shows that self-reported EFS may be an optional preoperative tool that can be used in the virtual setting to identify patients at HRF. Early identification of patients at risk for LOI and mortality provides an opportunity to implement targeted strategies to improve patient care.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".