Impact of frailty on outcomes of elderly patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frailty is a common condition in elderly patients who receive percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, how frailty affects clinical outcomes in this group is unclear. AIM: To assess the link between frailty and the outcomes, such as in-hospital complications, post-procedural complications, and mortality, in elderly patients post-PCI. METHODS: The PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were screened for publications up to August 2023. The primary outcomes assessed were in-hospital and all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), and major bleeding. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies with 739693 elderly patients undergoing PCI were included. Frailty was consistently associated with adverse outcomes. Frail patients had significantly higher risks of in-hospital mortality [risk ratio: 3.45, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 1.90-6.25], all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 2.08, 95%CI: 1.78-2.43], MACEs (HR: 2.92, 95%CI: 1.85-4.60), and major bleeding (HR: 4.60, 95%CI: 2.89-7.32) compared to non-frail patients. CONCLUSION: Frailty is a pivotal determinant in the prediction of risk of mortality, development of MACEs, and major bleeding in elderly individuals undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it