MétaCan
← all works

A Comparison of Two Approaches to Measuring Frailty in Elderly People

2007· article· en· 1,308 citations· W2108688205 on OpenAlex· 10.1093/gerona/62.7.738

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

Canadian affiliationAn author listed a Canadian institution. This is the only route the usual frame has.
About CanadaIts subject is Canada, wherever its authors sit.

Machine scores (provisional)

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

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.

Opus teacher head0.306
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread
0.091 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
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

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many definitions of frailty exist, but few have been directly compared. We compared the relationship between a definition of frailty based on a specific phenotype with one based on an index of deficit accumulation. METHODS: The data come from all 2305 people 70 years old and older who composed the clinical examination cohort of the second wave of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. We tested convergent validity by correlating the measures with each other and with other health status measures, and analyzed cumulative index distributions in relation to phenotype. To test criterion validity, we evaluated survival (institutionalization and all-cause mortality) by frailty index (FI) score, stratified by the phenotypic definitions as "robust," "pre-frail," and "frail." RESULTS: The measures correlated moderately well with each other (R=0.65) and with measures of function (phenotypic definition R=0.66; FI R=0.73) but less well with cognition (phenotypic definition R=-0.35; FI R=-0.58). The median FI scores increased from 0.12 for the robust to 0.30 for the pre-frail and 0.44 for the frail. Survival was also lower with increasing frailty, and institutionalization was more common, but within each phenotypic class, there were marked differences in outcomes based on the FI values-e.g., among robust people, the median 5-year survival for those with lower FI values was 85%, compared with 55% for those with higher FI values. CONCLUSION: The phenotypic definition of frailty, which offers ready clinical operationalization, discriminates broad levels of risk. The FI requires additional clinical translation, but allows the risk of adverse outcomes to be defined more precisely.

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.

The record

Venue
The Journals of Gerontology Series A
Topic
Frailty in Older Adults
Field
Medicine
Canadian institutions
Dalhousie UniversityNova Scotia Health AuthorityCapital District Health Authority
Funders
Keywords
GerontologyPsychologyComputer scienceMedicine
Has abstract in OpenAlex
yes