Exploring Cognitive Frailty: Prevalence and Associations with Other Frailty Domains in Older People with Different Degrees of Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive frailty has long been defined as the co-occurrence of mild cognitive deficits and physical frailty. However, recently, a new approach to cognitive frailty has been proposed: cognitive frailty as a distinct construct. Nonetheless, the relationship between this relatively new construct of cognitive frailty and other frailty domains is unclear. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to explore the prevalence of cognitive frailty in groups with different degrees of cognitive impairment, as well as to explore the associations between frailty domains, and if this varies with level of objective cognitive impairment. METHOD: Cross-sectional, secondary data from 3 research projects among community-dwelling people aged ≥60 years, with different degrees of objective cognitive impairment, were used: (1) a randomly selected sample (n = 353); (2) a sample at an increased risk of frailty (n = 95); and (3) a sample of memory clinic patients who scored 0.5 on the Clinical Dementia Rating scale - according to the "original" definition of cognitive frailty (n = 47). Multidimensional frailty was assessed with the Comprehensive Frailty Assessment Instrument - Plus and general cognitive functioning with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Descriptive statistics and linear regression were used to determine the prevalence of cognitive frailty and to explore the relationship between cognitive frailty and the other types of frailty in each sample. RESULTS: The prevalence of cognitive frailty increased along with the degree of objective cognitive impairment in the 3 samples (range 35.1-80.9%), while its co-occurrence with (one of) the other types of frailty was most frequent in the frail and community samples. Regarding its relationship with the other domains, cognitive frailty was positively associated with psychological frailty's subdomain mood disorder symptoms in all 3 samples (p ≤ 0.01), while there was no significant association with environmental frailty and social loneliness. The associations between cognitive frailty and the other types of frailty differed between the samples. CONCLUSION: Psychological and cognitive frailty are strongly associated, irrespective of the objective degree of cognitive impairment. In addition, it is shown that cognitive frailty can occur independently from the other frailty domains, including physical frailty, and therefore it can be seen as a distinct concept.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".