Assessing frailty in urogynecology patients: a comparative analysis of the Edmonton frail scale and pelvic floor symptom severity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to measure frailty using the Edmonton frail scale (EFS) and examine whether frailty is associated with presenting complaints or worse pelvic floor symptom severity in older urogynecology outpatients. We conducted a cross-sectional study of new urogynecology patients aged 50 and older at 2 urban academic centers between November 2018 and January 2020. Pelvic floor symptom severity was assessed using surveys [overactive bladder validated 8-question screener (OAB-V8), pelvic floor distress inventory, and 6-item female sexual function index]. Multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses were performed to compare chief complaint and questionnaire scores by EFS score, frailty status, and EFS component. A total of 138 women were recruited, with a mean age of 65 years (standard deviation 9.3). 11.6% met the criteria for frailty. Frail women had 6.2 greater adjusted odds of endorsing urinary incontinence symptoms as their presenting complaint, and women with higher EFS scores had worse OAB-V8 scores (adjusted ß=0.04, p=0.03). Depression/sadness were associated with worse urinary and prolapse symptoms. Frailty is common in older urogynecology outpatients, especially those presenting with urinary incontinence. Individual components of the EFS associated with symptomatic pelvic floor dysfunction included depressed mood, lack of reliable help, and incontinence.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".