Assessment of frailty by paramedics using the clinical frailty scale - an inter-rater reliability and accuracy study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Frailty assessment by paramedics in the prehospital setting is understudied. The goals of this study were to assess the inter-rater reliability and accuracy of frailty assessment by paramedics using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Methods This was a cross-sectional study with paramedics exposed to 30 clinical vignettes created from real-life situations. There was no teaching intervention prior to the study and paramedics were only provided with the French version of the CFS (definitions and pictograms). The primary outcome was the inter-rater reliability of the assessment. The secondary outcome was the accuracy, compared with the expert-based assessment. Reliability was determined by calculating an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Accuracy was assessed through a mixed effects logistic regression model. A sensitivity analysis was carried out by considering that an assessment was still accurate if the score differed from no more than 1 level. Results A total of 56 paramedics completed the assessment. The overall assessment was found to have good inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.87 [95%CI 0.81–0.93]). The overall accuracy was moderate at 60.6% (95%CI 54.9–66.1) when considering the full scale. It was however much higher (94.8% [95%CI 92.0–96.7] when close assessments were considered as accurate. The only factor associated with accurate assessment was field experience. Conclusion The assessment of frailty by paramedics was reliable in this vignette-based study. However, the accuracy deserved to be improved. Future research should focus on the clinical impact of these results and on the association of prehospital frailty assessment with patient outcomes. Registration This study was registered on the Open Science Framework registries ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VDUZY ).
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 | 0.047 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".