Frailty and outcomes in heart failure patients from high-, middle-, and low-income countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is little information on the incremental prognostic importance of frailty beyond conventional prognostic variables in heart failure (HF) populations from different country income levels. METHODS: A total of 3429 adults with HF (age 61 ± 14 years, 33% women) from 27 high-, middle- and low-income countries were prospectively studied. Baseline frailty was evaluated by the Fried index, incorporating handgrip strength, gait speed, physical activity, unintended weight loss, and self-reported exhaustion. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 39 ± 14% and 26% had New York Heart Association Class III/IV symptoms. Participants were followed for a median (25th to 75th percentile) of 3.1 (2.0-4.3) years. Cox proportional hazard models for death and HF hospitalization adjusted for country income level; age; sex; education; HF aetiology; left ventricular ejection fraction; diabetes; tobacco and alcohol use; New York Heart Association functional class; HF medication use; blood pressure; and haemoglobin, sodium, and creatinine concentrations were performed. The incremental discriminatory value of frailty over and above the MAGGIC risk score was evaluated by the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: At baseline, 18% of participants were robust, 61% pre-frail, and 21% frail. During follow-up, 565 (16%) participants died and 471 (14%) were hospitalized for HF. Respective adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for death among the pre-frail and frail were 1.59 (1.12-2.26) and 2.92 (1.99-4.27). Respective adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for HF hospitalization were 1.32 (0.93-1.87) and 1.97 (1.33-2.91). Findings were consistent among different country income levels and by most subgroups. Adding frailty to the MAGGIC risk score improved the discrimination of future death and HF hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty confers substantial incremental prognostic information to prognostic variables for predicting death and HF hospitalization. The relationship between frailty and these outcomes is consistent across countries at all income levels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".