Supplementary Material for: Methods of Assessing Frailty in the Critically Ill: A Systematic Review of the Current Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: As new treatments have become established, more frail pre-ICU patients are being admitted to intensive care units (ICUs); this is creating new challenges to provide adequate care and to ensure that resources are allocated in an ethical and economical manner. This systematic review evaluates the current standard for assessing frailty on the ICU, including methods of assessment, time point of measurements, and cut-offs. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on MEDLINE, Clinical Trials, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Randomized and non-randomized controlled studies were included that evaluated diagnostic tools and ICU outcomes for frailty. Exclusion criteria were the following: studies without baseline assessment of frailty on ICU admission, studies in paediatric patients or pregnant women, and studies that targeted very narrow populations of ICU patients. Eligible articles were included until January 31, 2021. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. No meta-analysis was performed, due to heterogeneity. Results: N = 57 articles (253,376 patients) were included using 19 different methods to assess frailty or a surrogate. Frailty on ICU admission was most frequently detected using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) (n = 35, 60.3%), the Frailty Index (n = 5, 8.6%), and Fried’s frailty phenotype (n = 6, 10.3%). N = 22 (37.9%) studies assessed functional status. Cut-offs, time points, and manner of baseline assessment of frailty on ICU admission varied widely. Frailty on ICU admission was associated with short- and long-term mortality, functional and cognitive impairment, increased health care dependency, and impaired quality of life post-ICU discharge. Conclusions: Frailty assessment on the ICU is heterogeneous with respect to methods, cut-offs, and time points. The CFS may best reflect frailty in the ICU. Frailty assessments should be harmonized and performed routinely in the critically ill.
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 | 0.006 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.668 | 0.049 |
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".