MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408996612 · doi:10.1186/s12890-025-03595-z

The impact of frailty on clinical outcomes among individuals with COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4408996612 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mathew Cherian, Pourya Masoudian, Kednapa Thavorn, Jacqueline S. Sandoz, Risa Shorr, Sunita Mulpuru

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pulmonary Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDMeta-analysisMEDLINEObservational studyHazard ratioSpirometryCINAHLOdds ratioInternal medicinePhysical therapyConfidence intervalPsychological interventionAsthmaPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frailty is a prevalent and robust predictor of poor outcomes for older adults and those with chronic disease. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to understand the association between frailty and clinical outcomes for people with COPD. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception to February 2022, for observational studies evaluating the association between frailty and clinical outcomes among individuals with COPD. Included studies defined COPD by spirometry, used a validated frailty assessment tool, and compared dyspnea, symptom burden, health related quality of life, exacerbations, hospitalization, or mortality between frail and non-frail individuals. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Mean differences or hazard ratios were calculated using inverse variance (IV) methods, odds ratios were calculated using Mantel–Haenszel methods, and homogeneity was assessed using I 2 statistics. Results were pooled using a random effects model. Of 1385 identified studies, 16 studies were included with 7 studies included in the meta-analyses, representing 5903 individuals. The Fried Frailty Phenotype instrument was used in 50% of included studies. When comparing frail vs. non-frail people with COPD, pooled estimates revealed frail people with COPD had higher dyspnea scores [modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) score standardized mean difference (95% CI): 1.67 (1.40–1.92), I 2 = 24%]; higher symptom burden [COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score mean difference (95% CI): 10.24 (8.30–12.17), I 2 = 31%]; more COPD exacerbations in the prior year [mean difference (95% CI): 1.09 (0.62–1.56), I 2 = 0%), and increased odds of being hospitalized in the previous year [OR (95% CI): 2.94 (1.57–5.50); I 2 = 0%]. The largest study with longest follow up period showed increased mortality risk among frail vs. non-frail individuals with COPD, [HR (95% CI): 1.83 (1.24–2.68)]. People with COPD and frailty experience increased dyspnea, symptom burden, exacerbation history, and hospitalizations compared to non-frail patients with COPD. Frailty is a robust predictor of outcomes among people with COPD and should be considered a treatable trait. Additional work is needed to standardize screening methods for frailty, and to understand the optimal timing of non-pharmacologic interventions to treat frailty among people with COPD. CRD42022329893

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0280.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.185
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Pulmonary MedicineSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207