The frailty index based on laboratory test data as a tool to investigate the impact of frailty on health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The frailty index (FI) quantifies frailty as deficit accumulation. It has been adapted to employ laboratory test data (FI-Lab). Our objective was to systematically review and meta-analyse the FI-Lab's ability to predict mortality. Secondary objectives were to review the FI-Lab's association with adverse health outcomes and whether FI-Lab scores differed between the sexes. A systematic literature search was carried out using six online databases to identify studies that measured the FI-Lab in humans. Hazard ratios (HRs) were combined in a meta-analysis to create a pooled risk estimate for mortality. Of the 1,201 papers identified, spanning January 2010 until 11 July 2022, 38 were included. FI-Lab scores per 0.01 unit increase predicted mortality overall (HR = 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.03-1.05) and for studies with a mean age of 81+ years (HR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.03-1.05). The quality of evidence for these meta-analyses are moderate and high, respectively. Further, higher FI-Lab scores were associated with more frequent adverse health outcomes. Sex differences in FI-Lab scores varied, with no consistent indication of a sex effect. The FI-Lab is associated with mortality and with a variety of adverse health outcomes. No consistent sex differences in FI-Lab scores were observed, with several studies in disagreement. Notably, these conclusions were most relevant to older (65+ years old) individuals; further evidence in younger people is needed in both clinical and population representative studies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".