THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN FRAILTY INDEX AND THE METABOLIC SYNDROME OVER THE LIFESPAN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both the frailty index (FI) and the metabolic syndrome have been associated with poor outcomes in the general population. In very old people (90+ years) the FI, but not the metabolic syndrome was associated with an increased mortality risk. This study investigates the relationship between FI, metabolic syndrome, and mortality risk, in younger (20–65 years) and older (65+ years) people. The United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) datasets for 2003–2004 and 2005–2006 were linked with mortality data up to 2011. The metabolic syndrome was defined using the International Diabetes Federation criteria, while frailty was determined using a 41 item FI. Compared to the younger group (n=6403), the older group (n=2152) had a higher FI (0.10 ± 0.00 vs 0.22 ± 0.00, p<0.001) and a greater prevalence of metabolic syndrome (24.14 vs 45.5 %, p<0.001). The metabolic syndrome and FI were weakly correlated in younger people (r=0.25, p<0.001) but not in older (r=0.08, p<0.1). In bivariate analyses, the FI predicted mortality risk in both age groups whereas the metabolic syndrome did only in the younger group. In Cox models, adjusted for age, sex and each other, the FI was associated with increased mortality risk at both ages (younger HR 1.05 (1.04–1.06); older HR 1.04 (1.03–1.04)) whereas the metabolic syndrome did not contribute to mortality risk. Thus, the FI is a better predictor of mortality than metabolic syndrome status in younger and in older people.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".