Оцінювання синдрому старечої астенії за допомогою шкали Frailty та Edmonton frail у пацієнтів похилого та старечого віку в невідкладній абдомінальній хірургії
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the work was to compare the effectiveness of the assessment of senile asthenia syndrome using the Frailty and Edmonton Frail scales in elderly and senile patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Materials and methods. The study included 80 patients aged 60 to 89 years with a diagnosis of acute calculous cholecystitis. A correlation was determined between asthenia and the severity of the patient’s condition according to the P-POSSUM scale, the peak value of the increase in the risk of postoperative complications and mortality occurs in patients with a sum of points >32, p = 0.012. The syndrome of senile asthenia using the Edmonton Frail scale was detected in 30 (37.5 %) patients, according to the Frailty scale – 32 (40.0 %), U = 3120.0, p = 0.7862. Results. The main advantage of the Edmonton Frail scale is the examination time of 22 ± 3 min, while with the Frailty scale 360 ± 22 min (U = 24.5, p < 0.0001). Based on the assessment of the severity of the condition using the P-POSSUM scale, we determined a direct correlation of average strength between the presence of asthenia and the number of points: Edmonton Frail subgroup A – rs = 0.81, p = 0.000001. The same results, respectively, on the Frailty scale – rs = 0.78, p = 0.000004. The frequency of complications increases significantly in the category of patients with asthenia, which is confirmed by both the Edmonton Frail scale – 23.3 % (U = 605.0, p = 0.0087), and the Frailty scale – 21.9 % (U = 632.0, p = 0.0150). Conclusions. The frequency of detection of senile asthenia syndrome using the Edmonton Frail and Frailty scale in patients was equivalent (U = 3120.0, p = 0.7862). The Edmonton Frail scale is more convenient to use in urgent situations, and the mean time to diagnose asthenia using it was 22 ± 3 min, while the complete diagnosis using the Frailty scale took 360 ± 22 min (U = 24.5, p < 0.0001). A significant increase in the frequency of postoperative complications was determined in the category of patients with asthenia, confirmed both by the Edmonton Frail scale – 23.3 % (U = 605.0, p = 0.0087), and by the Frailty scale – 21.9 % (U = 632.0, p = 0.0150).
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".