Frailty Tools Compared for Predicting Death and Long Stays in Heart Attack Patients

This document is a published correction (erratum) to an original research article in PLOS ONE by Langsted A, Benatar J, Kerr A, Bloomfield K, Devlin G, Sasse A, and colleagues, which appeared in February 2025 (Volume 20, Issue 2, e0318656). The correction itself introduces no new scientific findings; it exists solely to rectify typographical errors that appeared in the originally published version.

The first error corrected is a typographical break in the article title, where 'prolonged' was printed as 'prolon ged' — an artifact likely introduced during manuscript processing. The corrected title reads: 'Comparison of frailty instruments for predicting mortality and prolonged hospitalization in acute coronary syndrome patients.'

The second correction addresses Figure 3 of the original article, where the word 'patients' was misspelled in the figure heading. The corrected Figure 3, reproduced in this erratum, illustrates associations between Edmonton Frailty Scale (EFS) scores and mortality outcomes for the full study cohort as well as for age-stratified subgroups — specifically patients younger than 80 years and those aged 80 years or older. The figure caption clarifies that EFS scores are reported across the full range, including scores of 5 or below, which fall below the threshold for mild frailty.

The original study is of meaningful clinical relevance because frailty is increasingly recognized as a critical prognostic variable in cardiovascular medicine, particularly in older adults presenting with acute coronary syndrome. ACS patients who are frail face substantially higher risks of in-hospital complications, prolonged stays, and short- and long-term mortality. Identifying which frailty screening instrument performs best in this acute-care context can guide clinical decision-making and resource allocation.

Because this publication is purely a correction notice, there are no new methods, results, or conclusions to evaluate. The scientific integrity and findings of the original paper are unaffected. Readers interested in the full methodology and results should consult the original article (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0318656, PMID: 39919129, PMC11805369).