MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4379259535 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066848

How regional versus global thresholds for physical activity and grip strength influence physical frailty prevalence and mortality estimates in PURE: a prospective multinational cohort study of community-dwelling adults

2023· article· en· W4379259535 on OpenAlexafffund
Maheen Farooqi, Αλεξάνδρα Παπαϊωάννου, Shrikant I. Bangdiwala, Sumathy Rangarajan, Darryl P. Leong

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchServierOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareGlaxoSmithKlineHamilton Health SciencesSanofiHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaAstraZeneca
KeywordsMedicineGrip strengthMultinational corporationProspective cohort studyEpidemiologyCohort studyGerontologyPhysical activityCohortEnvironmental healthDemographyPhysical therapySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Handgrip strength and physical activity are commonly used to evaluate physical frailty; however, their distribution varies worldwide. The thresholds that identify frail individuals have been established in high-income countries but not in low-income and middle-income countries. We created two adaptations of physical frailty to study how global versus regional thresholds for handgrip strength and physical activity affect frailty prevalence and its association with mortality in a multinational population. Design, setting and participants Our sample included 137 499 adults aged 35–70 years (median age: 61 years, 60% women) from Population Urban Rural Epidemiology Studies community-dwelling prospective cohort across 25 countries, covering the following geographical regions: China, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Africa, Russia and Central Asia, North America/Europe, Middle East and South America. Primary and secondary outcome measures We measured and compared frailty prevalence and time to all-cause mortality for two adaptations of frailty. Results Overall frailty prevalence was 5.6% using global frailty and 5.8% using regional frailty . Global frailty prevalence ranged from 2.4% (North America/Europe) to 20.1% (Africa), while regional frailty ranged from 4.1% (Russia/Central Asia) to 8.8% (Middle East). The HRs for all-cause mortality (median follow-up of 9 years) were 2.42 (95% CI: 2.25 to 2.60) and 1.91 (95% CI: 1.77 to 2.06) using global frailty and regional frailty, respectively, (adjusted for age, sex, education, smoking status, alcohol consumption and morbidity count). Receiver operating characteristic curves for all-cause mortality were generated for both frailty adaptations. Global frailty yielded an area under the curve of 0.600 (95% CI: 0.594 to 0.606), compared with 0.5933 (95% CI: 0.587 to 5.99) for regional frailty (p=0.0007). Conclusions Global frailty leads to higher regional variations in estimated frailty prevalence and stronger associations with mortality, as compared with regional frailty. However, both frailty adaptations in isolation are limited in their ability to discriminate between those who will die during 9 years’ follow-up from those who do not.

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)0.004
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→