Prevalence and 10‐Year Outcomes of Frailty in Older Adults in Relation to Deficit Accumulation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence and 10-year outcomes of frailty in older adults in relation to deficit accumulation. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: The National Population Health Survey of Canada, with frailty estimated at baseline (1994/95) and mortality follow-up to 2004/05. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling older adults (N=2,740, 60.8% women) aged 65 to 102 from 10 Canadian provinces. During the 10-year follow-up, 1,208 died. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported health information was used to construct a frailty index (Frailty Index) as a proportion of deficits accumulated in individuals. The main outcome measure was mortality. RESULTS: The prevalence of frailty increased with age in men and women (correlation coefficient=0.955-0.994, P<.001). The Frailty Index estimated that 622 (22.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI)=21.0-24.4%) of the sample was frail. Frailty was more common in women (25.3%, 95% CI=23.2-27.5%) than in men (18.6%, 95% CI=15.9-21.3%). For those aged 85 and older, the Frailty Index identified 39.1% (95% CI=31.3-46.9%) of men as frail, compared with 45.1% (95% CI=39.7-50.5%) of women. Frailty significantly increased the risk of death, with an age- and sex-adjusted hazard ratio for the Frailty Index of 1.57 (95% CI=1.41-1.74). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of frailty increases with age and at any age lessens survival. The Frailty Index approach readily identifies frail people at risk of death, presumably because of its use of multiple health deficits in multidimensional domains.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it