Baseline Characteristics of Frailty and Disease Stage in Older People Living With CKD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The GOAL trial, a cluster randomized controlled trial, investigated the effect of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) on frail older people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). This paper describes the following: (i) participant baseline characteristics, and (ii) their relationship with CKD stage and frailty severity. Methods Sixteen kidney outpatient clinics (clusters) were randomly allocated 1:1 to CGA or usual care. Enrolled frail older people with CKD (Frailty Index [FI] > 0.25; aged ≥65 years or ≥55 if First Nations people) received the intervention allocated to their cluster. CKD was defined as moderate (stages 3 or 4) or severe (stage 5 or 5D), and frailty categorized as moderate (>0.25–<0.36), severe (0.36–<0.45) or very severe (≥0.45). Participant characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Statistical methods appropriate for type of outcome were used to describe the association of frailty and CKD categories with participant characteristics. Results Over a 27-month period, 240 people were recruited (55.7% male, 82.9% White/European). Mean age was 76.9 (SD: 6.6) years and median FI was 0.39 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.32–0.47). The median EQ-5D-5L quality-of-life index score was worse in those with very severe frailty (0.57, IQR: 0.28–0.83) compared to severe frailty (0.85, IQR: 0.67–0.92) and moderate frailty (0.90, IQR: 0.82–0.93) (overall P < 0.001). Median EQ-5D-5L was also worse in those with severe CKD (0.79, IQR: 0.40–0.89), compared to moderate CKD (median 0.87, IQR: 0.73–0.92; P = 0.001). Conclusion This cohort demonstrated poorer quality-of-life scores in those with more severe frailty and more advanced CKD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".