Frailty does not cause all frail symptoms: United States Health and Retirement Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frailty is associated with major health outcomes. However, the relationships between frailty and frailty symptoms haven't been well studied. This study aims to show the associations between frailty and frailty symptoms. METHODS: The Health and Retirement Study (HRS) is an ongoing longitudinal biannual survey in the United States. Three of the most used frailty diagnoses, defined by the Functional Domains Model, the Burden Model, and the Biologic Syndrome Model, were reproduced according to previous studies. The associations between frailty statuses and input symptoms were assessed using odds ratios and correlation coefficients. RESULTS: The sample sizes, mean ages, and frailty prevalence matched those reported in previous studies. Frailty statuses were weakly correlated with each other (coefficients = 0.19 to 0.38, p < 0.001 for all). There were 49 input symptoms identified by these three models. Frailty statuses defined by the three models were not significantly correlated with one or two symptoms defined by the same models (p > 0.05 for all). One to six symptoms defined by the other two models were not significantly correlated with each of the three frailty statuses (p > 0.05 for all). Frailty statuses were significantly correlated with their own bias variables (p < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: Frailty diagnoses lack significant correlations with some of their own frailty symptoms and some of the frailty symptoms defined by the other two models. This finding raises questions like whether the frailty symptoms lacking significant correlations with frailty statuses could be included to diagnose frailty and whether frailty exists and causes frailty symptoms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".