Comparison of Various Functional Assessment Tools to Identify Older Patients Undergoing Aortic Aneurysm Repair at Risk for Postoperative Complications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To estimate whether the benefits of aortic aneurysm repair will outweigh the risks, determining individual risks is essential. This single-center prospective cohort study aimed to compare the association of functional tools with postoperative complications in older patients undergoing aortic aneurysm repair. METHODS: Ninety-eight patients (≥65 years) who underwent aortic aneurysm repair were included. Four functional tools were administered: the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA); the 4-Meter Walk Test (4-MWT); handgrip strength; and the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI). Primary outcome was the association between all tests and 30-day postoperative complications. RESULTS: After adjusting for confounders, the odds ratio for MoCA was 1.39 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.450; 3.157; P = 0.723), for 4-MWT 0.63 (95% CI 0.242; 1.650; P = 0.348), for GFI 1.82 (95% CI 0.783; 4.323, P = 0.162), and for weak handgrip strength 4.78 (95% CI 1.338; 17.096, P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Weak handgrip strength is significantly associated with the development of postoperative complications after aortic aneurysm repair. This study strengthens the idea that implementing a quick screening tool for risk assessment at the outpatient clinic, such as handgrip strength, identifies patients who may benefit from preoperative enhancement with help from, for example, Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, eventually leading to better outcomes for this patient group.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".