Associations between transitions of intrinsic capacity and frailty status, and 3-year disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The trajectory of frailty and intrinsic capacity (IC) often overlap in older adults. Longitudinal analyses of transitions of frailty and IC, and their associations with incident functional decline are limited. The present study aimed to identify transitions of frailty status and IC, and explore associations between transitions of frailty and IC, and future disability among community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: In the West China and Aging Trend Study, 808 participants aged ≥ 60 years completed baseline and three years follow-up (frailty, IC and disability assessments). Physical frailty was measured based on Fried phenotype. IC was evaluated by five domains (cognition, locomotion, sensory, psychological, and vitality). Disability was defined as a need for assistance in any items in activity of daily living (ADL) or the instrumental activity of daily living (IADL). Logistic regressions were performed to examine their relationships. RESULTS: Four transitions of IC status (kept well: 27.4%, improved: 8.4%, worsened: 35.4%, and kept poor: 28.8%), and two transitions of frailty status (kept not-frail/improved: 93.2%, kept frail/worsened: 6.8%) were identified. Impaired locomotion and vitality at baseline were significantly associated with kept frail or worsened frail. However, impaired sensory and vitality at baseline not frailty status was significantly associated with transitions of IC. Adjusted for covariates and transitions of frailty, kept poor IC was associated with ADL (OR = 2.26, 95%CI = 1.17,4.34) and IADL disability (OR = 3.74, 95%CI = 1.79, 7.82). CONCLUSIONS: Transitions of IC, but not frailty were associated with higher risk of incident disability. Baseline locomotion and vitality impairment were associated with worsened or kept frail. Our findings support the WHO's notion of monitoring and optimizing IC to delay deterioration of IC and preventing frailty and disability. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: ChiCTR1800018895.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".