S3147 Frailty Scoring in Diabetic vs Non-Diabetic Gastroparesis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Gastroparesis (GP) is commonly categorized into idiopathic, diabetic, and postsurgical subtypes. Idiopathic cases account for up to two-thirds of presentations. Other causes include diabetic neuropathy, post-vagotomy, and Parkinson’s disease. Regardless of cause, symptoms tend to be similar and negatively impact quality of life. In a prior study that was completed, gastroparesis patients were found to have increased frailty across various clinical frailty scales. This study is a subgroup analysis comparing frailty and symptom burden between patients with diabetic and non-diabetic gastroparesis. Methods: Patients with gastroparesis completed several assessments: Patient Assessment of Upper Gastrointestinal Disorders-Symptom Severity Index (PAG-SYMI), SF-8 quality of life scale, FRAIL score, Clinical Frailty Scale-8 (CFS-8), Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA) frailty scale, and Edmonton Frailty Scale. The PAG-SYMI (0-5) evaluates GI symptom severity, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms. CFS-8 and FRAIL assess emotional and physical frailty, respectively. The CSHA (1-6) and Edmonton (0-10+) scores measure functional fitness and multidimensional frailty. Handgrip strength was measured using a Jamar dynamometer. Results: A total of 73 gastroparesis patients were included: 14 with diabetes and 59 without. No statistically significant differences were found between groups across clinical and functional measures. PAG-SYMI scores were similar (diabetic: 2.61 ± 1.04; non-diabetic: 2.55 ± 1.13; P = 0.42), as were SF-8 scores (2.06 ± 0.87 vs 2.03 ± 0.88; P = 0.46). Frailty assessments showed no significant differences: FRAIL (1.79 ± 0.97 vs 1.55 ± 1.14; P = 0.34), CSHA (3.21 ± 1.42 vs 3.16 ± 1.33; P = 0.42), and Edmonton (5.00 ± 3.28 vs 4.15 ± 2.79; P = 0.20). Diabetic patients had slightly lower handgrip strength (23.50 ± 8.93 kg vs 26.73 ± 8.12 kg; P = 0.14), though this difference was not significant. Conclusion: Patients with diabetic and non-diabetic gastroparesis demonstrated similar levels of symptom severity, quality of life impairment, and frailty. Although diabetic patients had marginally lower physical strength and higher frailty scores, these differences were not statistically significant. These findings suggest that gastroparesis imposes a comparable clinical burden regardless of underlying etiology. Larger studies are needed to determine whether specific subgroups may benefit from tailored interventions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".