MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412894412 · doi:10.3390/jcm14155354

Understanding Frailty in Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review of Prevalence, Measurement, Sex and Gender Considerations, and Barriers to Completion

2025· review· en· W4412894412 on OpenAlexaff
Rachael Pamela Carson, Voldiana Lúcia Pozzebon Schneider, Emilia Main, Carolina Gonzaga, Gabriela Lima de Melo Ghisi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation InstituteYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContext (archaeology)GerontologyChecklistStressorRehabilitationVulnerability (computing)DistressInclusion (mineral)Physical therapyClinical psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: Frailty is a multifactorial clinical syndrome characterized by diminished physiological reserves and increased vulnerability to stressors. It is increasingly recognized as a predictor of poor outcomes in cardiac rehabilitation (CR). However, how frailty is defined, assessed, and addressed across outpatient CR programmes remains unclear. This scoping review aimed to map the extent, range, and nature of research examining frailty in the context of outpatient CR, including how frailty is measured, its impact on CR participation and outcomes, and whether sex and gender considerations or participation barriers are reported. Methods: Following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search across six electronic databases (from inception to 15 May 2025). Eligible peer-reviewed studies included adult participants assessed for frailty using validated tools and enrolled in outpatient CR programmes. Two reviewers independently screened citations and extracted data. Results were synthesized descriptively and narratively across three domains: frailty assessment, sex and gender considerations, and barriers to CR participation. The protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework. Results: Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria, all conducted in the Americas, Western Pacific, or Europe. Frailty was assessed using 26 distinct tools, most commonly the Kihon Checklist, Fried’s Frailty Criteria, and Frailty Index. The median pre-CR frailty prevalence was 33.5%. Few studies (n = 15; 38.5%) re-assessed frailty post-CR. Sixteen studies reported sex or gender data, but none applied sex- or gender-based analysis (SGBA) frameworks. Only eight studies examined barriers to CR participation, identifying physical limitations, emotional distress, cognitive concerns, healthcare system-related factors, personal and social factors, and transportation as key barriers. Conclusions: The literature on frailty in CR remains fragmented, with heterogeneous assessment methods, limited global representation, and inconsistent attention to sex, gender, and participation barriers. Standardized frailty assessments and individualized CR programme adaptations are urgently needed to improve accessibility, adherence, and outcomes for frail individuals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.140
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.140
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0250.022
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.470
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.049 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→