MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376134719 · doi:10.1155/2023/6660984

Comparison of Two Frailty Assessment Methods and Their Association with Functionality in Subjects with Exacerbation of COPD

2023· article· en· W4376134719 on OpenAlex
Andrea Akemi Morita, Rafaela Furlan Munhoz, Giovana Guzzi, Vanessa Suziane Probst

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Gerontology and Geriatrics Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsMedicineExacerbationCOPDAssociation (psychology)Copd exacerbationGerontologyInternal medicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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; <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mi>p</a:mi> <a:mo>=</a:mo> <a:mn>0.011</a:mn> </a:math> ); however, there was no agreement between them ( <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"> <c:mi>p</c:mi> <c:mo>=</c:mo> <c:mn>0.20</c:mn> </c:math> ). 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; <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"> <e:mi>p</e:mi> <e:mo>=</e:mo> <e:mn>0.009</e:mn> </e:math> ). 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.294 · 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