Comparison of Clinical Frailty Scale and Edmonton Frail Scale in older adults presenting to the emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to compare the prognostic values of Edmonton Frail Scale and Clinical Frailty Scale in the emergency department and determine their suitability for patient management. Materials and Method: This study was conducted as a single-center prospective observational study. Patients aged 65 and older who presented to the emergency department were included. Clinical Frailty Scale and Edmonton Frail Scale scores, the emergency department outcomes, length of stay in the emergency department, 30-day mortality, and 30-day readmission data of the patients were recorded. ROC analysis was performed to examine the predictive values on outcomes. DeLong Test was used to compare the predictive values. Results: This study included 400 patients. Intensive care unit admission was significantly more frequent in the frail group according to both Edmonton Frail Scale and Clinical Frailty Scale. The length of stay in the emergency department was significantly longer in the frail group in both classifications. The mortality rate was significantly higher in the frail group in both classifications. The optimal cut off value for predicting mortality was found to be 9 for Edmonton Frail Scale and 7 for Clinical Frailty Scale. There was no significant difference between the predictive values of two scales. Conclusion: We found that two frail scales have good predictive values for adverse outcomes, such as mortality and the need for Intensive care unit admission in the emergency department. We believe that both scores would be valuable in guiding decisions for the emergency department usage due to their similar predictive values. Keywords: Geriatrics; Emergency Service; Hospital; Frailty; Frail Elderly; Mortality.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".