The Clinical Frailty Scale version 2.0: Translation and defining reliability in Vietnamese older patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a practical, reliable, and judgment-based tool among many instruments used for detecting frailty in older adults. However, the CFS has not yet been culturally adapted or validated in the Vietnamese language. This study aimed to translate the CFS into Vietnamese and evaluate the reliability of the Vietnamese CFS version in older adults. The prospective study recruited outpatients aged 60 years and older at a geriatric outpatient clinic of a public hospital in Vietnam between September 2022 and January 2023. The CFS version 2.0 was translated into Vietnamese following the guidelines of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcome Research Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Weighted kappa was used to assess for agreement of inter-rater and test-retest reliability, while Kendall’s tau was applied to evaluate the correlation with other geriatric assessment-related characteristics. A total of 324 older participants were enrolled (mean age: 76±9 years) in the study. The CFS was successfully translated and culturally adapted into Vietnamese (CFS-VN). Overall, the CFS-VN demonstrated good inter-rater and test-retest reliability, with a weighted kappa of 0.808 (p<0.001) and 0.869 (p<0.001), respectively. The CFS-VN also showed a significant correlation with various geriatric assessments, including multimorbidity, polypharmacy, activities of daily living impairment, and instrumental activities of daily living impairment impairment. The Vietnamese version of CFS demonstrated satisfactory reliability for evaluating frailty in older patients. This tool has the potential to enhave the quality of care for rapidly aging population in Vietnam.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".