Usefulness of the Edmonton Frail Scale in Assessing the Impact of Heart Failure on Frailty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: The association of frailty with heart failure (HF) is common in the elderly, and its presence is a poor prognostic factor; it increases the risk of falls, disability, hospitalization, and mortality. The aim of this prospective study was to assess the incidence of physical frailty in patients with HF and the role of physical exercise in improving physical performance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 141 patients with musculoskeletal pathology, aged over 65 years, who followed a specific physical training program were included. The patients were assigned to two groups: HF patients -group HF (n=53) and patients without HF -group N-HF (n=88). RESULTS: At cohort level, mild and moderate frailty was detected in 20.56% of patients enrolled in the study (n=29). Severe form of frailty was identified in 2.83% of cases (n=4). The prevalence of mild, moderate, and severe frailty in the two groups differed significantly (p<0.05). Patients with mild frailty and moderate frailty in the HF group represented 24.52% compared to 18.18% in the N-HF group (p=0.007). Severe frailty was present in 5.66% in the HF group, not significantly different from the N-HF group (1.13%), p=0.317. The values obtained in the functional independence and functional performance domains were significantly improved at the reassessment after 6 months. CONCLUSION: Exercise-based rehabilitation is a primary therapy for improving physical performance, reflected by increased independence related to daily activities and functional performance in HF patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".