MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323652486 · doi:10.1161/jaha.122.026951

Comparison of Questionnaire and Performance‐Based Physical Frailty Scales to Predict Survival and Health‐Related Quality of Life in Patients With Heart Failure

2023· review· en· W4323652486 on OpenAlexafffund
Joseph Somech, Aayushi Joshi, Rita Mancini, Jessica Chetrit, Caroline Michel, Richard Sheppard, Viviane Nguyen, Mathieu Walker, Nadia Giannetti, Abhinav Sharma, Delina Maghakian, Esther Laforest, Jonathan Afilalo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria HospitalUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversitySt Mary's Hospital CentreJewish General Hospital
FundersJewish General Hospital
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureQuality of life (healthcare)AmbulatoryCohortPhysical therapyProspective cohort studyCohort studyGerontologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Frailty is prevalent in older adults with heart failure and is associated with poor outcomes; however, there remains uncertainty on how to measure frailty in clinical practice. Methods and Results A multicentric prospective cohort study was assembled at 4 heart failure clinics to compare the prognostic value of 3 physical frailty scales in ambulatory patients with heart failure. Outcomes were all-cause death or hospitalization and health-related quality of life using the 36-Item Short Form survey questionnaire (SF-36) at 3 months. Multivariable regression was adjusted for age, sex, Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure score, and baseline SF-36 score. The cohort included 215 patients (mean age 77.6 years). All 3 frailty scales were independently associated with death or hospitalization at 3 months; the adjusted odds ratios standardized per 1 SD worsening of the Short Physical Performance Battery; Fried, and strength, assistance with walking, rising from a chair, climbing stairs, and falls scales were 1.67 (95% CI, 1.09-2.55), 1.60 (95% CI, 1.04-2.46), and 1.55 (95% CI, 1.03-2.35), respectively, with C statistics of 0.77 to 0.78. All 3 frailty scales were independently associated with worsening SF-36 scores, especially the Short Physical Performance Battery, for which 1 SD worsening of frailty translated to a decrement of -5.86 (-8.55 to -3.17) and -5.51 (-7.82 to -3.21) points in the Physical Component Score and Mental Component Score. Conclusions All 3 physical frailty scales were associated with death, hospitalization, and reduced health-related quality of life in ambulatory patients with heart failure. Questionnaire or performance-based physical frailty scales can be used to offer prognostic value and a therapeutic target in this vulnerable population. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03887351.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.010
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.328 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207