Efficacy of multidomain interventions to improve physical frailty, depression and cognition: data from cluster‐randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frailty is the pre-eminent exigency of aging. Although frailty-related impairments are preventable, and multidomain interventions appear more effective than unimodal ones, the optimal components remain uncertain. METHODS: We devised multidomain interventions against physical and cognitive decline among prefrail/frail community-dwelling ≥65-year-olds and evaluated these in complementary cluster-randomized trials of efficacy and participant empowerment. The Efficacy Study compared ~3-monthly telephone consultations vs. 16, 2 h sessions/year comprising communally partaken physical and cognitive training plus nutrition and disease education; the Empowerment Study compared the standard Efficacy Study multidomain intervention (Sessions 1-10) vs. an enhanced version redesigned to empower and motivate individual participants. Changes from baseline in physical, functional, and cognitive performance were measured after 6 and 12 months in the Efficacy Study and after 6 months in the Empowerment Study, with post-intervention follow-up at 9 months. Primary outcomes are as follows: Cardiovascular Health Study frailty score; gait speed; handgrip strength; and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Secondary outcomes are as follows: instrumental activities of daily living; metabolic equivalent of task (MET); depressed mood (Geriatric Depression Scale-5 ≥2); and malnutrition (Mini-Nutritional Assessment short-form ≤11). Intervention effects were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model. RESULTS: Efficacy Study participants (n = 1082, 40 clusters) were 75.1 ± 6.3 years old, 68.7% women, and 64.7% prefrail/frail; analytic clusters: 19 intervention (410/549 completed) vs. 21 control (375/533 completed). Empowerment Study participants (n = 440, 14 clusters) were 75.9 ± 7.1 years old, 83.6% women, and 56.7% prefrail/frail; analytic clusters: seven intervention (209/230 completed) vs. seven control (189/210 completed). The standard and enhanced multidomain interventions both reduced frailty and significantly improved aspects of physical, functional, and cognitive performance, especially among ≥75-year-olds. Standard multidomain intervention decreased depression [odds ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32, 0.99] and malnutrition (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.26, 0.78) by 12 months and improved concentration at Months 6 (0.23, 95% CI 0.04, 0.42) and 12 (0.46, 95% CI 0.22, 0.70). Participant empowerment augmented activity (4.67 MET/h, 95% CI 1.64, 7.69) and gait speed (0.06 m/s, 95% CI 0.00, 0.11) at 6 months, with sustained improvements in delayed recall (0.63, 95% CI 0.20, 1.06) and MoCA performance (1.29, 95% CI 0.54, 2.03), and less prevalent malnutrition (odds ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.18, 0.84), 3 months after the intervention ceased. CONCLUSIONS: Pragmatic multidomain intervention can diminish physical frailty, malnutrition, and depression and enhance cognitive performance among community-dwelling elders, especially ≥75-year-olds; this might supplement healthy aging policies, probably more effectively if participants are empowered.
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 | 0.025 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".