Informative Frailty Indices from Binarized Biomarkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Frailty indices (FI) based on continuous valued health data, such as obtained from blood and urine tests, have been shown to be predictive of adverse health outcomes. However, creating FI from such biomarker data requires a binarization treatment that is difficult to standardize across studies. In this work, we explore a “quantile” methodology for the generic treatment of biomarker data that allows us to construct an FI without preexisting medical knowledge (i.e. risk thresholds) of the included biomarkers. We show that our quantile approach performs as well as, or even slightly better than, established methods for the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA) data sets. Furthermore, we show that our approach is robust to cohort effects within studies as compared to other data-based methods. The success of our binarization approaches provides insight into the robustness of the FI as a health measure, the upper limits of the FI observed in various data sets, and highlights general difficulties in obtaining absolute scales for comparing FI between studies.
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 | 0.028 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".