MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377011617 · doi:10.2196/45502

Associations Between Frailty and the Increased Risk of Adverse Outcomes Among 38,950 UK Biobank Participants With Prediabetes: Prospective Cohort Study

2023· article· en· W4377011617 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xingqi Cao, Xueqin Li, Jingyun Zhang, Xiaoyi Sun, Gan Yang, Yining Zhao, Shujuan Li, Emiel O. Hoogendijk, Xiaofeng Wang, Yimin Zhu, Heather Allore, Thomas M. Gill, Zuyun Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesZhejiang UniversityNational Institute on AgingFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaYale University
KeywordsPrediabetesMedicineCohortDiabetes mellitusProspective cohort studyCohort studyDementiaInternal medicineDiseaseType 2 diabetesGerontologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Compared with adults with normal glucose metabolism, those with prediabetes tend to be frail. However, it remains poorly understood whether frailty could identify adults who are most at risk of adverse outcomes related to prediabetes. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically evaluate the associations between frailty, a simple health indicator, and risks of multiple adverse outcomes including incident type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), diabetes-related microvascular disease, cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), eye disease, dementia, depression, and all-cause mortality in late life among middle-aged adults with prediabetes. METHODS: We evaluated 38,950 adults aged 40 years to 64 years with prediabetes using the baseline survey from the UK Biobank. Frailty was assessed using the frailty phenotype (FP; range 0-5), and participants were grouped into nonfrail (FP=0), prefrail (1≤FP≤2), and frail (FP≥3). Multiple adverse outcomes (ie, T2DM, diabetes-related microvascular disease, CVD, CKD, eye disease, dementia, depression, and all-cause mortality) were ascertained during a median follow-up of 12 years. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate the associations. Several sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: At baseline, 49.1% (19,122/38,950) and 5.9% (2289/38,950) of adults with prediabetes were identified as prefrail and frail, respectively. Both prefrailty and frailty were associated with higher risks of multiple adverse outcomes in adults with prediabetes (P for trend <.001). For instance, compared with their nonfrail counterparts, frail participants with prediabetes had a significantly higher risk (P<.001) of T2DM (hazard ratio [HR]=1.73, 95% CI 1.55-1.92), diabetes-related microvascular disease (HR=1.89, 95% CI 1.64-2.18), CVD (HR=1.66, 95% CI 1.44-1.91), CKD (HR=1.76, 95% CI 1.45-2.13), eye disease (HR=1.31, 95% CI 1.14-1.51), dementia (HR=2.03, 95% CI 1.33-3.09), depression (HR=3.01, 95% CI 2.47-3.67), and all-cause mortality (HR=1.81, 95% CI 1.51-2.16) in the multivariable-adjusted models. Furthermore, with each 1-point increase in FP score, the risk of these adverse outcomes increased by 10% to 42%. Robust results were generally observed in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In UK Biobank participants with prediabetes, both prefrailty and frailty are significantly associated with higher risks of multiple adverse outcomes, including T2DM, diabetes-related diseases, and all-cause mortality. Our findings suggest that frailty assessment should be incorporated into routine care for middle-aged adults with prediabetes, to improve the allocation of health care resources and reduce diabetes-related burden.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207