MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6977623869 · doi:10.7275/28355453

Development of a Predictive Model for Frailty Utilizing Electronic Health Records

2022· article· en· W6977623869 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComorbidityMedical recordFrailty syndromeDiagnosis codePredictive modellingCohortMEDLINECohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frailty is a multifaceted, geriatric syndrome that is associated with age-related declines in functional reserves resulting in increased risks of in-hospital death, readmissions and discharge to nursing homes. The risks associated with frailty highlights the need for providers to be able to quickly, and accurately, assess someone’s frailty level. Previous studies have shown that bedside clinician assessment is not a reliable or valid way to determine frailty, meaning that a more reliable, valid and concise method is needed. We developed a prediction model using discharge ICD-9/ICD-10 diagnostic codes and other demographic variables to predict Reported Edmonton Frail Scale scores. Participants were from the Baystate Frailty Study, a prospective cohort design study among elderly patients greater than 65 years old who were admitted to a single academic medical center between 2014 and 2016. Three different predictive models were completed utilizing the LASSO approach. The adjusted r-square increased across the three models indicating an increase in the predictive ability of the models. In this study of 762 hospitalized patients over the age of 65 years old, we found that a frailty prediction model that included ICD codes only had a poor prediction ability (adjusted r-square=0.10). The prediction ability improved 2-fold after adding demographic information, a comorbidity score and interaction terms (adjusted r-square=0.26). This study provided additional insights into the development of an automatic frailty assessment, something which is currently missing from clinical care.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst)Same topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207