Dynamics of Frailty and Cognition After Age 50: Why It Matters that Cognitive Decline is Mostly Seen in Old Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frailty has been considered an antecedent and, to a lesser extent, an outcome of cognitive impairment. Both frailty and cognitive impairment are multiply determined and each is strongly related to age, making it likely that the two interact, especially as people age. In consequence, understanding their interaction and co-occurrence can offer insight into pathophysiology, prevention, and management. OBJECTIVE: To examine the nature of the relationship between frailty and cognitive impairment using longitudinal data from the Survey of Health Aging and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), assessing for bidirectionality. METHODS: We conducted secondary analyses using data from the first two waves of SHARE. The sample (N = 11,941) was randomly split into two halves: one half for model development and one half for model confirmation. We used a 65 deficit Frailty Index and combined 5 cognitive deficits into a global cognitive impairment index. Cross-lagged path analysis within a structural equation modelling framework was used to examine the bi-directional relationship between the two measures. RESULTS: After controlling for age, sex, social vulnerability, education, and initial cognitive impairment, each 0.10 increase in baseline frailty was associated with a 0.01 increase in cognitive impairment at follow-up (p < 0.001). Likewise, each 0.1 increase in baseline cognitive impairment was associated with a 0.003 increase frailty at follow-up (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our findings underscore the importance of considering cognitive impairment in the context of overall health. Many people with dementia are likely to have other health problems, which need to be considered in concert to achieve optimal health outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".