Frailty as a predictor of postoperative outcomes in older gastroesophageal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frailty disproportionately impacts older patients with cancer, rendering them at increased risk for poor surgical outcomes. However, the impact of frailty on postoperative outcomes in the population with older gastroesophageal cancer remains unknown. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting frailty in older gastroesophageal cancer surgery patients searching Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The pooled prevalence and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for mortality and complications estimates were analyzed. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Data were pooled using random-effects models. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies involving 6143 older patients with gastroesophageal cancer were included. The prevalence of frailty in older gastroesophageal cancer patients was 28% (95% CI = 20-36; p < 0.0001). Frailty was associated with an increased odds ratio for mortality (OR = 2.66; 95% CI = 1.49-4.78; p = 0.0010) and major complication (OR = 2.65; 95% CI = 2.17-3.25; p < 0.0001) compared with non-frail older gastric cancer patients, adjusted for potential confounders. CONCLUSION: Frailty is frequent in older gastroesophageal cancer patients and may predict adverse outcomes in older gastroesophageal cancer with surgery. The findings underline the significance of frailty evaluation among this population.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".