Comparison of Two Frailty Assessment Methods and Their Association with Functionality in Subjects with Exacerbation of COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. To verify the prevalence of frailty in patients hospitalized with acute exacerbation of COPD; to compare two frailty assessment methods: Edmonton Scale and the Fried Frailty Phenotype, and to associate frailty with functioning in these patients. Methods. Patients hospitalized due to an acute exacerbation of COPD were included. The assessment of pulmonary function, frailty, and functioning was performed. Frailty assessment was performed by the Edmonton Scale and Fried Frailty Phenotype. Individuals were classified into “frail,” “pre-frail” and “non-frail.” Functioning was evaluated by the one sit-to-stand test. Results. Thirty-five individuals were included (17 male, 69 ± 9 years; FEV1/FVC 47 ± 10%; FEV1 34 (24–52) % predicted). Participants scored 3 (3-4) points on the Edmonton Scale and 7 (5–9) points on the Fried Frailty Phenotype. According to the Fried model, 17% were considered prefrail and 83% frail and in the Edmonton scale, 20% were classified as nonfrail, 29% prefrail, and 51% frail. There was a positive moderate correlation between the two methods (r = 0.42; p = 0.011 ); however, there was no agreement between them ( p = 0.20 ). This probably occurs because they assess the same construct, i.e., frailty; however, they are different in their components. There was a negative and moderate correlation between the Fried Frailty Phenotype and functioning (r = −0.43; p = 0.009 ). Conclusion. Most hospitalized individuals with exacerbated COPD with severe and very severe airflow limitation are frail and the assessment methods correlate, but there is no agreement. Additionally, there is association between frailty and functioning in this population.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".