MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388450141 · doi:10.1101/2023.11.06.23298187

Comparison of frailty instruments in acute coronary syndrome patients

2023· preprint· en· W4388450141 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anne Langsted, Jocelyne Benatar, Andrew Kerr, Katherine Bloomfield, Gerry Devlin, Alex Sasse, David Smythe, Andrew To, Gerry Wilkins, Harvey D. White, Ralph Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcute coronary syndromeInternal medicineHazard ratioEuroSCOREDiseaseMyocardial infarctionConfidence intervalCardiac surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Recognising frailty is important to guide clinical decisions in older patients with cardiac disease. The relative strengths of different frailty instruments to predict mortality and hospitalization risk are uncertain. Methods The Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS), Fried Criteria (Fried), Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Katz score (Katz), GP Cognition test (GPCog), and Euroscore II a disease based risk score, were completed in 1174 clinically stable inpatients >70 years of age admitted with an acute coronary syndrome to 5 New Zealand hospitals. Associations with all cause mortality (n=353, 29%) during a median follow-up of 5.1 (IQR: 4.6-5.5) years and hospitalization for > 10 days in the next year (n=267, 22%) were evaluated. Results There were graded associations between increasing frailty assessed by each tool and all cause mortality. For the EFS, which scores up to 17 points on different dimensions of frailty, hazard ratios for high (score 9-17, n=197) compared to low frailty (score 0-2, n=331) were 5.0 (95%CI: 3.4-7.4) for mortality, and 5.3 (3.4-8.3) for hospitalization. Discrimination for all-cause mortality according to Harrell’s C-index for each instrument were EFS 0.663, Euroscore II 0.654, Fried 0.648, CFS 0.640, GPCog 0.608, and Katz 0.593, P<0.001 for all. C-statistics for hospitalization >10 days were EFS 0.649, Fried 0.628, Katz 0.602, Euroscore II 0.589, CFS 0.584, and GPCog 0.552, P<0.001 for all. When combining tools integrated discrimination improvement for both mortality and hospitalization were greater for EFS than for other frailty instruments. Conclusion In acute coronary syndrome patients aged >70 years greater ‘frailty’ assessed using all tools was associated with higher mortality and hospitalization. The Edmonton Frail Scale, which provides a graded measure of severity of frailty based on information relevant to clinical care, discriminated the risk of mortality and hospitalization as well or better than other frailty instruments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→