MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379051786 · doi:10.1016/j.xkme.2023.100684

Frailty and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Treated With Hemodialysis: A Prospective Cohort Study

2023· article· en· W4379051786 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueKidney Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsHemodialysisMedicineProspective cohort studyCohortCohort studyInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rationale and ObjectiveFrailty is common among people with kidney failure treated with hemodialysis (HD). The objective was to describe how frailty evolves over time in people treated by HD, how improvements in frailty and frailty markers are associate with clinical outcomes, and the characteristics that are associated with improvement in frailty.Study DesignProspective cohort study.Setting and ParticipantsAdults initiating thrice weekly in-center HD in Canada.ExposureWe classified frailty using a 5-point score (3 or more indicates frailty) based on physical inactivity, slowness or weakness, poor endurance or exhaustion, and malnutrition. We categorized the frailty trajectory as never present, improving, deteriorating, and always present.OutcomesAll-cause death, hospitalizations, and placement into long-term care.Analytical ApproachWe examined the association between time-varying frailty measures and these outcomes using Cox and negative binomial models, after adjustment for potential confounders.Results985 participants were included and followed up for a median of 33 months; 507 (51%) died, 761 (77%) experienced ≥1 hospitalization and 115 (12%) entered long-term care. Overall, 760 (77%) reported frailty during follow-up. Three-quarters (78%) of those with frailty at baseline remained frail throughout the follow-up, 46% without baseline frailty became frail, and 23% with baseline frailty became nonfrail. Higher frailty scores were associated with an increased risk of mortality (fully adjusted HR, 1.58 per unit; 95% CI, 1.39-1.80) and an increased rate of hospitalization (RR, 1.16 per unit; 95% CI, 1.09-1.23). Compared with those who were frail throughout the follow-up, participants with frailty at baseline but improving during follow-up showed a lower mortality (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.42-0.81), and a lower rate of hospitalization (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.87).LimitationsThere was missing data on frailty at baseline and during follow-up.ConclusionsFrailty was associated with a higher risk of poor outcomes compared with those without frailty, and participants whose status improved from frail to nonfrail showed better clinical outcomes than those who remained frail. These findings emphasize the importance of identifying and implementing effective treatments for frailty in patients receiving maintenance HD. Frailty is common among people with kidney failure treated with hemodialysis (HD). The objective was to describe how frailty evolves over time in people treated by HD, how improvements in frailty and frailty markers are associate with clinical outcomes, and the characteristics that are associated with improvement in frailty. Prospective cohort study. Adults initiating thrice weekly in-center HD in Canada. We classified frailty using a 5-point score (3 or more indicates frailty) based on physical inactivity, slowness or weakness, poor endurance or exhaustion, and malnutrition. We categorized the frailty trajectory as never present, improving, deteriorating, and always present. All-cause death, hospitalizations, and placement into long-term care. We examined the association between time-varying frailty measures and these outcomes using Cox and negative binomial models, after adjustment for potential confounders. 985 participants were included and followed up for a median of 33 months; 507 (51%) died, 761 (77%) experienced ≥1 hospitalization and 115 (12%) entered long-term care. Overall, 760 (77%) reported frailty during follow-up. Three-quarters (78%) of those with frailty at baseline remained frail throughout the follow-up, 46% without baseline frailty became frail, and 23% with baseline frailty became nonfrail. Higher frailty scores were associated with an increased risk of mortality (fully adjusted HR, 1.58 per unit; 95% CI, 1.39-1.80) and an increased rate of hospitalization (RR, 1.16 per unit; 95% CI, 1.09-1.23). Compared with those who were frail throughout the follow-up, participants with frailty at baseline but improving during follow-up showed a lower mortality (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.42-0.81), and a lower rate of hospitalization (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.87). There was missing data on frailty at baseline and during follow-up. Frailty was associated with a higher risk of poor outcomes compared with those without frailty, and participants whose status improved from frail to nonfrail showed better clinical outcomes than those who remained frail. These findings emphasize the importance of identifying and implementing effective treatments for frailty in patients receiving maintenance HD.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.306 · 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