The relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older people: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Frailty is a complex geriatric syndrome resulting in decreased physiological reserves. Frailty and polypharmacy are common in older adults and the focus of extensive studies, although little is known about the impact they may have on each other. This is the first systematic review analysing the available evidence on the relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older adults. METHODS: Systematic review of quantitative studies. A comprehensive literature search for publications in English or Spanish was performed on MEDLINE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database and PsycINFO in September 2017 without applying restrictions on the date of publication. Studies reporting any relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older adults were considered. RESULTS: A total of 25 publications were included, all of them observational studies. Evaluation of Fried's frailty criteria was the most common approach, followed by the Edmonton Frail Scale and FRAIL scale. Sixteen of 18 cross-sectional analyses and five of seven longitudinal analyses demonstrated a significant association between an increased number of medications and frailty. The causal relationship is unclear and appears to be bidirectional. Our analysis of published data suggests that polypharmacy could be a major contributor to the development of frailty. CONCLUSIONS: A reduction of polypharmacy could be a cautious strategy to prevent and manage frailty. Further research is needed to confirm the possible benefits of reducing polypharmacy in the development, reversion or delay of frailty.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".