Development of a Predictive Model for Frailty Utilizing Electronic Health Records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".