MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389235654 · doi:10.2196/preprints.54839

Using Existing Clinical Data to Measure Older Adult Inpatients’ Frailty at Admission and Discharge: Hospital Patient Register Study (Preprint)

2023· preprint· en· W4389235654 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Boris Wernli, Henk Verloo, Armin von Gunten, Filipa Pereira

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHospital admissionGerontologyPopulationHospital dischargeCluster (spacecraft)Health careEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Frailty is a widespread geriatric syndrome among older adults, including hospitalized older inpatients. Some countries use electronic frailty measurement tools to identify frailty at the primary care level, but this method has rarely been investigated during hospitalization in acute care hospitals. An electronic frailty measurement instrument based on population-based hospital electronic health records could effectively detect frailty, frailty-related problems, and complications as well be a clinical alert. Identifying frailty among older adults using existing patient health data would greatly aid the management and support of frailty identification and could provide a valuable public health instrument without additional costs. OBJECTIVE We aim to explore a data-driven frailty measurement instrument for older adult inpatients using data routinely collected at hospital admission and discharge. METHODS A retrospective electronic patient register study included inpatients aged ≥65 years admitted to and discharged from a public hospital between 2015 and 2017. A dataset of 53,690 hospitalizations was used to customize this data-driven frailty measurement instrument inspired by the Edmonton Frailty Scale developed by Rolfson et al. A 2-step hierarchical cluster procedure was applied to compute e-Frail-CH (Switzerland) scores at hospital admission and discharge. Prevalence, central tendency, comparative, and validation statistics were computed. RESULTS Mean patient age at admission was 78.4 (SD 7.9) years, with more women admitted (28,018/53,690, 52.18%) than men (25,672/53,690, 47.81%). Our 2-step hierarchical clustering approach computed 46,743 inputs of hospital admissions and 47,361 for discharges. Clustering solutions scored from 0.5 to 0.8 on a scale from 0 to 1. Patients considered frail comprised 42.02% (n=19,643) of admissions and 48.23% (n=22,845) of discharges. Within e-Frail-CH’s 0-12 range, a score ≥6 indicated frailty. We found a statistically significant mean e-Frail-CH score change between hospital admission (5.3, SD 2.6) and discharge (5.75, SD 2.7; P<.001). Sensitivity and specificity cut point values were 0.82 and 0.88, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.85. Comparing the e-Frail-CH instrument to the existing Functional Independence Measure (FIM) instrument, FIM scores indicating severe dependence equated to e-Frail-CH scores of ≥9, with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.97 and 0.88, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.92. There was a strong negative association between e-Frail-CH scores at hospital discharge and FIM scores (rs=–0.844; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS An electronic frailty measurement instrument was constructed and validated using patient data routinely collected during hospitalization, especially at admission and discharge. The mean e-Frail-CH score was higher at discharge than at admission. The routine calculation of e-Frail-CH scores during hospitalization could provide very useful clinical alerts on the health trajectories of older adults and help select interventions for preventing or mitigating frailty.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.338
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.100 · 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 topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→