Dysnatremia in Relation to Frailty and Age in Community-dwelling Adults in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Frailty represents an age-related state of increased risk of adverse health outcomes, reflecting some combination of increased damage and compromised repair processes. Our objectives were to establish whether frailty is associated with dysnatremia (a deviation of serum sodium from normal values), to determine whether frailty explains the previously established association between age and dysnatremia and to assay the impact of each on mortality. Methods: The relationship between age, frailty, and dysnatremia was investigated across the adult life course in 8,911 respondents from the 2003-2004 and 2005-2006 cross-sectional National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, on whom both laboratory and mortality data were available. A frailty index (FI) was calculated for each respondent and related to dysnatremia (serum sodium values outside a 136-144 mmol/L reference range). Results: Dysnatremia was significantly related to both age and frailty; as the degree of frailty increased, so did the proportion with dysnatremia, for example, from 4.1% in those with FI less than 0.10, to 12.4% in those with FI 0.40 or more; p less than .001. Adjusted for frailty, the relationship between age and dysnatremia was no longer significant. In the age- and sex-adjusted Cox models, both frailty (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-1.05 for every 0.01 increase in FI) and dysnatremia (HR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.51-2.26) were significant predictors of mortality; when hyponatremia was separated from hypernatremia in the Cox models, hypernatremia wasn't significant, but only 41 participants were identified as hypernatremic. Conclusion: Increasing frailty is associated with dysnatremia and confounds the association between age and dysnatremia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".