Changes in the Lethality of Frailty Over 30 Years: Evidence From Two Cohorts of 70-Year-Olds in Gothenburg Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With aging, health deficits accumulate: people with few deficits for their age are fit, and those with more are frail. Despite recent reports of improved health in old age, how deficit accumulation is changing is not clear. Our objectives were to evaluate changes over 30 years in the degree of deficit accumulation and in the relationship between frailty and mortality in older adults. METHODS: We analyzed data from two population based, prospective longitudinal cohorts, assembled in 1971-1972 and 2000-2001, respectively. Residents of Gothenburg Sweden, systematically drawn from the Swedish population registry. The 1901-1902 cohort (N = 973) had a response rate of 84.8%; the 1930 cohort (N = 500) had a response rate of 65.1%. A frailty index using 36 deficits was calculated using data from physical examinations, assessments of physical activity, daily, sensory and social function, and laboratory tests. We evaluated mortality over 12.5 years in relation to the frailty index. RESULTS: Mean frailty levels were the same (x¯ = 0.20, p = .37) in the 1901-1902 cohort as in the 1930 cohort. Although the frailty index was linked to the risk of death in both cohorts, the hazards ratio decreased from 1.67 per 0.1 increment in the frailty index for the first cohort to 1.32 for the second cohort (interaction term p = .005). DISCUSSION: Although frailty was as common at age 70 as before, its lethality appears to be less. Just why this is so should be explored further.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".