Frailty screening in older adults: is annual screening necessary in primary care?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Case-finding for Complex Chronic Conditions in Adults 75+ (C5-75) involves annual frailty screening in primary care using dual-trait screening measures of handgrip strength and gait speed, with additional screening for co-existing conditions in those deemed frail. OBJECTIVE: To identify low-risk individuals who could be screened for frailty every 2 years, rather than annually. METHODS: This study examined a prospective cohort of patients who completed at least two annual C5-75 screenings between April 2014 and December 2018. Handgrip strength and gait speed on initial assessment were categorized based on proximity to frailty thresholds and were used to predict frailty risk on the second assessment. We used Fisher's exact test to assess differences in risk. Logistic regression models tested associations between independent variables of age, patient activity level, falls history, grip strength and gait speed on first assessment and dependent variable of frailty on subsequent assessment. RESULTS: Analyses included 571 patients with two annual assessments. Frailty risk on the second assessment was significantly higher for patients who had gait speed or grip strength within 20% of the frailty threshold (5.7%), compared with the other categories (0.7%, 0.9%, 0%; P = 0.002); 60% of patients fell within these lower risk categories. Controlling for grip strength and gait speed, no other measures had significant associations with frailty risk. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that 60% patients are at low risk (<1%) of transitioning to frailty by the next annual assessment. Reducing screening frequency from annually to every 2 years may be appropriate for these patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".