MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SEX DIFFERENCES IN THE PREVALENCE OF FRAILTY IN A POPULATION AGED 75 AND OLDER IN SPAIN

2008· letter· en· W1599706526 on OpenAlexaff
Marta Fernandez‐Bolaños, À. Otero, Marı́a Victoria Zunzunegui, François Béland, Teresa Alarcón, Canto De Hoyos, María Victoria Castell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2008
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMarital statusGerontologyDemographyPopulationLife expectancyCohortGrip strengthActivities of daily livingComorbidityLogistic regressionCohort studyGeriatricsPhysical therapyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor: In Spain, a country of 44 million people with a life expectancy of 83.5 for women and 77.0 for men, 17% of the population is aged 65 and older. We report here what, to our knowledge, are the first estimates of the prevalence of frailty in a Spanish population of community-dwelling persons. Data are from the fifth wave of "Aging in Leganés" a cohort of 1,699 persons aged 62 and older started in 1993 in Leganés, a city in the metropolitan area of Madrid.1 On September 1, 2006, there were 450 persons aged 75 and older still surviving who had participated in at least one of the preceding waves. Data were collected through personal home interviews and examinations in September to December 2006. Individuals were classified as "frail" when at least three of the five frailty criteria proposed previously2 were present. Information on education, marital status, comorbidity, and disability in activities of daily living (ADLs) was also collected.1 Logistic regressions were fitted to identify correlates of frailty and its five components. Prevalence of frailty was significantly higher in women (30.9%) than in men (9.3%) (P<.001). Women had a higher prevalence of exhaustion (35.6% vs 9.0%, P<.001), slow walking (57.4% vs 20.9%, P<.001), and low physical activity (39.3% vs 22.5%, P=.003) than men and a similar prevalence of weight loss (6.0% vs 9.3%, P=.31) and grip strength (31.0% vs 26.2%, P=.39). A sharp increase of frailty prevalence after age 85 was observed in men and women (Table 1). Controlling for age, education, comorbidity, and ADL disability, women's odds of frailty were 2.60 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.13–5.98) compared with men. Women had higher odds of exhaustion (odds ratio (OR)=5.62, 95% CI=2.72–11.62) and slow walking (OR=5.51, 95% CI=3.05–7.46); there were no significant sex differences in low physical activity, weight loss, or grip strength. Prevalence of frailty in people aged 75 and older in Spain was higher than that reported in studies in comparable age groups in men and women,2–4 which is contrary to what could be expected given the high longevity of elderly people in Spain5 but consistent with previous work showing the higher prevalence of disability and lower disability-free life expectancy than other European populations.6,7 The higher frailty of women, even after adjustment for age, education, chronic diseases, and disability, is also puzzling given the 6.5-year sex gap in life expectancy in Spain. Two of the criteria that define the concept of frailty support this sex difference: slow walking speed and exhaustion. It was hypothesized that this excess frailty may be partly due to the marked sex roles still present in this age group of elderly people, for which most women were housewives with a clear domestic role, restrained social life, and little economic independence while men were the providers. We gratefully acknowledge the other members of the current "Aging in Leganés" research team. Conflict of Interest: The editor in chief has reviewed the conflict of interest checklist provided by the authors and has determined that the authors have no financial or any other kind of personal conflicts with this letter. This research was supported in part by the FIS Programme (PI/95/1868 and RETICS 06/13/1013). Author Contributions: AO, VZ, and FB participated in the study concept and design. All authors were involved in analysis and interpretation of data and in preparation of the letter. Sponsor's Role: None.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietySame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207