The association between frailty and perceived physical and mental fatigability: The Long Life Family Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Higher levels of frailty, quantified by a frailty index (FI), may be linked to fatigue severity as tasks become more physically and mentally demanding. Fatigue, a component of frailty research, has been ambiguous and inconsistent in its operationalization. Fatigability-the quantification of vulnerability to fatigue in relation to specific intensity and duration of activities-offers a more sensitive and standardized approach, though the association between frailty and fatigability has not been assessed. METHODS: Using cross-sectional data from the Long Life Family Study at Visit 2 (2014-2017; N = 2524; mean age ± standard deviation (SD) 71.4 ± 11.2 years; 55% women; 99% White), we examined associations between an 83-item FI after excluding fatigue items (ratio of number of health problems reported (numerator) out of the total assessed (denominator); higher ratio = greater frailty) and perceived physical and mental fatigability using the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale (PFS) (range 0-50; higher scores = greater fatigability). RESULTS: Participants had mean ± standard deviation FI (0.08 ± 0.06; observed range: 0.0-0.43), PFS Physical (13.7 ± 9.6; 39.5% more severe, ≥15), and PFS Mental (7.9 ± 8.9; 22.8% more severe, ≥13). The prevalence of more severe physical and mental fatigability was higher across FI quartiles. In mixed effects models accounting for family structure, a clinically meaningful 3%-higher FI was associated with 1.9 points higher PFS Physical score (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-2.1) and 1.7 points higher PFS Mental score (95% CI 1.5-1.9) after adjusting for covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty was associated with perceived physical and mental fatigability severity. Understanding this association may support the development of interventions to mitigate the risks associated with greater frailty and perceived fatigability. Including measurements of perceived fatigability, in lieu of fatigue, in frailty indices has the potential to alleviate the inconsistencies and ambiguity surrounding the operationalization of fatigue and provide a more precise and sensitive measurement of frailty.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".