Predictive Value of Frailty on Outcomes of Patients With Cirrhosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Frailty is one of the most common symptoms in patients with cirrhosis. Many researchers have identified it as a prognostic factor for patients with cirrhosis. However, no quantitative meta-analysis has evaluated the prognostic value of frailty in patients with cirrhosis. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the prognostic significance of frailty in patients with cirrhosis. Methods: The systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations. We conducted a comprehensive search of the literature using databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science, as well as China National Knowledge Infrastructure, encompassing the period from inception to 22 December 2023. Data were extracted for frailty to predict adverse outcomes in patients with cirrhosis. RevMan (version 5.3) and R (version 4.2.2) were used to assess the extracted data. Results: A total of 26 studies with 9597 patients with cirrhosis were included. Compared with patients having low or no frailty, the frail group had a higher mortality rate (relative ratio, RR=2.07, 95% CI 1.82-2.34, P<.001), higher readmission rate (RR=1.50, 95% CI 1.22-1.84, P<.001), and lower quality of life (RR=5.78, 95% CI 2.25-14.82, P<.001). The summary receiver operator characteristic (SROC) curve of frailty for mortality in patients with cirrhosis showed that the false positive rate (FPR) was 0.25 (95% CI 0.17-0.34), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 4.17 (95% CI 2.93-5.93), sensitivity was 0.54 (95% CI 0.39-0.69), and specificity was 0.73 (95% CI 0.64-0.81). The SROC curve of readmission showed that the FPR, DOR, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.39 (95% CI 0.17-0.66), 1.38 (95% CI 0.64-2.93), 0.46 (95% CI 0.28-0.64), and 0.60 (95% CI 0.28-0.85), respectively. Conclusions: This meta-analysis demonstrated that frailty is a reliable prognostic predictor of outcomes in patients with cirrhosis. To enhance the prognosis of patients with cirrhosis, more studies on frailty screening are required.
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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".