Table_1_Effects of Frailty on Outcomes Following Surgery Among Patients With Hip Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.docx
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Frailty is a syndrome of multisystem dysfunction in the elderly. The association between preoperative frailty and postoperative outcomes in patients with hip fractures is unclear. To address this issue, we performed a meta-analysis to determine the association of frailty with postoperative mortality, complications, and readmission in patients with hip fractures. Methods We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and The Cochrane Library for cohort studies of frailty associated with postoperative adverse events in patients with hip fractures from inception to November 6, 2021. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature. Statistical analysis of meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Results Twelve retrospective cohort studies and seven prospective cohort studies involving a total of 62,132 patients met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis. Compared with non-frail patients, the pooled results showed that frailty was associated with patient in-hospital mortality (relative risk [RR] = 2.93; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 2.56–3.34), 30-day mortality (RR = 2.85, 95%CI: 1.67–4.85) and total complications (RR = 1.79, 95%CI: 1.50–2.15). Subgroup analysis showed that the type of study design and frailty assessment tool had no significant effect on the results. Sensitivity analysis showed that the polled results of frailty predicted one-year mortality and 30-day readmission was unstable. Conclusions In this meta-analysis, we found that preoperative frailty may be associated with postoperative adverse events in patients with hip fractures, including in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and postoperative complications. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42021287739.
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 | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.270 | 0.006 |
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".