283. MODIFIED FRAILTY INDEX AND CLINICAL FRAILTY SCALE TOOLS ARE NOT GOOD PREDICTORS OF SURVIVAL AFTER MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Assessing frailty in elderly patients is pivotal for preoperative risk stratification. Whilst the modified Frailty-Index (m-FI) and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) have been used to predict postoperative mortality and morbidity in various surgical contexts, their prognostic value for complications and overall survival following esophagectomy remains uncertain. Several studies have assessed pre-operative application of frailty indices and whether they have prognostic value for long-term postoperative outcomes, however, none have compared m-FI and CFS in patients undergoing esophagectomy. This study examines and compares m-FI and CFS with overall survival and post-operative complications in patients undergoing Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (MIO). Methods We retrospectively analysed data from a prospectively maintained database, including patients aged ≥65 years undergoing MIO for esophageal cancer from January 2014 to December 2023, at a high-volume esophago-gastric tertiary centre. We compared the m-FI 11 and m-FI 5, CFS, all measuring frailty parameters in surgical patients. Frailty was defined as m-FI 11 ≥3, m-FI 5 ≥2, or CFS ≥4, based on the current literature evidence for application of these frailty assessment tools. Primary outcomes were 2- and 5-year all-cause mortality, with anastomotic leak, serious complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa) and average length of stay (LOS) as secondary outcomes. Results Among 174 patients (median age 72 years, range 65-85, male-to-female ratio 4:1), no significant associations were found between age, sex, TNM stage, and pre/post-op chemoradiotherapy within each scoring category. Neither tool showed significant associations for 2-, 5-year, and overall mortality (Table 1), nor for average length of stay. However, an m-FI 5 score ≥2 exhibited an odds ratio (OR) of 2.41 (95% CI 1.00–5.78, p = 0.049) for anastomotic leak, and a CFS score ≥4 had an OR of 2.46 (95% CI 1.02–5.90, p = 0.044) for serious complications. Conclusion In frail patients undergoing MIO, both the m-FI and CFS tools demonstrated no significant prognostic value for predicting overall survival. However, m-FI 5 ≥2 correlated significantly with anastomotic leaks, while CFS ≥4 correlated with serious complications. Relying on scoring tools for frailty assessment may inadvertently trivialise what is intended to be a multidimensional evaluation of health domains. Nevertheless, their utility in predicting complications should not be overlooked. We propose a more strategic use of frailty assessment tools to triage patients for comprehensive geriatric evaluation. This approach identifies patients at highest risk of complications and facilitates targeted prehabilitation for optimising outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".