The Edmonton Frail Scale as a screening score for frailty in oncogeriatrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is recommended for assessing frailty in older cancer patients but is time-consuming. The G8 screening tool was developed to select frail patients requiring CGA to optimize resources. The Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) is another frailty scale validated for preoperative frailty screening, but scarcely studied in the field of oncogeriatrics. In this study, we examined the added value of the EFS in older cancer patients already considered as frail by the G8, by analyzing the association of EFS with CGA adjusted for age, gender, metastatic stage and comorbidity. We also analyzed the association of EFS with the one-year mortality rate after adjusting for cancer type and metastatic stage. Methodology This retrospective study included patients aged over 70 years old with a new diagnosis of cancer, considered as potentially frail according to the G8 and who had had a CGA ( N = 380). Results The EFS identified 329 (86.58%) patients as frail and having a statistically significant predicted number of pathological components on the CGA ( r = 0.64, p < 0.001). When adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, and metastatic stage, the EFS was independently associated with the CGA ( p < 0001), as well as with comorbidity ( p = 0.004). The patients who died in the first year (43%) had a significantly higher mean EFS score (8/17) than living patients (6/17) ( p < 0.0001). After adjustment for cancer type and stage, EFS independently predicted one-year mortality (OR 1.17; 95% CI 1.08–1.28; pseudo R 2 = 0.228, p < 0.001). Discussion The EFS is a reliable tool for predicting frailty identified by the CGA in an older cancer population pre-selected as frail by the G8. EFS is an independent predictor of one-year mortality after adjustment for confounding factors. Validation of the EFS as a screening tool for frailty in cancer requires further studies to assess its performance in patients with normal G8 scores.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".