Prevalence of Frailty and Its Standardised Assessment Tools among Malaysian Older Person: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frailty is conceptually defined as a state of increased vulnerability in older persons, resulting from age-associated declines in physiological reserve and function as they cope with everyday life stressors. To date, the prevalence of frailty has been assessed in various ways. The objective of this study was to identify the prevalence of the condition and the assessment tools used to determine its occurrence among Malaysian older individuals. A systematic literature search was performed on electronic bibliographic databases, namely, Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCOHost: MEDLINE Complete and Google Scholar. Ten eligible articles were reviewed and evaluated using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Frailty was diagnosed using Fried's frailty phenotype and the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI). Assessment tools that included physical performance tests detected a lower prevalence of frailty than that determined using questionnaire-based tools. The prevalence of frailty ranged from as low as 6% to as high as 76%, and there was a higher prevalence among older persons living in aged care homes. This review suggests increasing prospective and interventional studies on frailty to establish a cause-effect relationship between standardised tools of assessing frailty and its prevalence among Malaysian older persons and provide guidelines for health professionals on promoting active lifestyles among older populations.
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 | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".