Poverty and Frailty Are Not Related to Each Other With Regard to Outcomes in Middle-Aged and Older Patients with Burn Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between frailty and poverty in burn patients ≥50 years old, and their association with patient outcomes. This was a single-center retrospective chart review from 2009 to 2018 of patients ≥50 years old admitted with acute burn injuries. Frailty was assigned using the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale. Poverty was defined as a patient from a zip code that had >20% of people living in poverty. The relationship between frailty and poverty, as well as each variable independently on mortality, length of stay (LOS), and disposition location, was examined. Of 953 patients, the median age was 61 years, 70.8% were male, and the median total body surface area burn was 6.6%. Upon admission, 26.4% and 35.2% of patients were frail and from impoverished neighborhoods, respectively. The mortality rate was 8.8%. Univariate analysis demonstrated that nonsurvivors had significantly higher chances of living in poverty (P = .02) and were more likely to be frail compared to survivors. There was no significant correlation between poverty and frailty (P = .08). Multivariate logistic regression confirmed the relationship between lack of poverty and mortality (OR .47, 95% CI 0.25-0.89) and frailty and mortality (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.24-2.12). Neither poverty (P = .26) nor frailty (P = .52) was associated with LOS. Both poverty and frailty were associated with a patient's discharge location (P = .03; P < .0001). Poverty and frailty each independently predict mortality and discharge destination in burn patients ≥50, but they are not associated with LOS nor each other.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".