Sex differences in frailty: Comparisons between humans and preclinical models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frailty can be viewed as a state of physiological decline that increases susceptibility to adverse health outcomes. This loss of physiological reserve means that even small stressors can lead to disability and death in frail individuals. Frailty can be measured with various clinical tools; the two most popular are the frailty index and the frailty phenotype. Clinical studies have used these tools to show that women are frailer than men even though they have longer lifespans. Still, factors responsible for this frailty-mortality paradox are not well understood. This review highlights evidence for male-female differences in frailty from both the clinical literature and in animal models of frailty. We review evidence for higher frailty levels in female animals as seen in many preclinical models. Mechanisms that may contribute to sex differences in frailty are highlighted. In addition, we review work that suggests frailty may play a role in susceptibility to chronic diseases of aging in a sex-specific fashion. Additional mechanistic studies in preclinical models are needed to understand factors involved in male-female differences in frailty in late life.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it