Construct and Criterion-Related Validity of the Clinical Frailty Scale in Persons With HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The co-occurrence of frailty and cognitive impairment in older (50+ years) persons with HIV (PWH) is common and increases the risk of poor outcomes. In HIV clinics, the most commonly used frailty measures are the frailty phenotype (FP), which requires measuring grip strength and gait speed to implement, and the frailty index (FI) based on comprehensive health data collected on patients. We examined construct and criterion-related validity (as it predicts cognition) of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), a less resource-intensive approach for assessing frailty, in relation to these more commonly used frailty assessments (FP and FI). SETTING/METHODS: A total of 143 older (age 50+) PWH (mean age 57 years; 88% male) seen at the Southern Alberta Clinic underwent both frailty screening with the FP, CFS, and FI and neuropsychological testing. Mixed-effects regressions examined the associations between frailty status and cognition. RESULTS: Concordance with the FP was slightly superior for the CFS than the FI. The FP and CFS had similar associations with domain-specific cognitive performance with frail PWH performing worse than nonfrail individuals on tests requiring manual dexterity (Trail Making Part A and B; Symbol Digit; and Grooved Pegboard; P values <0.05). Neither were associated with executive function, learning, or memory performance. The FI was associated with worse fluency, fine motor skills (Grooved Pegboard), and Trail Making Part A. CONCLUSION: The CFS is a simple screening tool with good construct and criterion-related validity. It was associated with a similar pattern of cognitive deficits as the FP. If confirmed and the associations are extended to other clinically significant characteristics and outcomes, the CFS can be considered as an alternative to the FP and FI in assessing frailty in older PWH.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".