Comparison of three frailty measures for predicting hospitalization and mortality in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared different measures of frailty for predicting adverse outcomes. It remains unknown which frailty measurement approach best predicts healthcare utilization such as hospitalization and mortality. AIMS: This study aims to compare three approaches to measuring frailty-grip strength, frailty phenotype, and frailty index-in predicting hospitalization and mortality among middle-aged and older Canadians. METHODS: We analyzed baseline and the first 3-year follow-up data for 30,097 participants aged 45 to 85 years from the comprehensive cohort of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA). Using separate logistic regression models adjusted for multimorbidity, age and biological sex, we predicted participants' risks for overnight hospitalization in the past 12 months and mortality, at the first 3-year follow-up, using each of the three frailty measurements at baseline. Model discrimination was assessed using Harrell's c-statistic and calibration assessed using calibration plots. RESULTS: The predictive performance of all three measures of frailty were roughly similar when predicting overnight hospitalization and mortality risk among CLSA participants. Model discrimination measured using c-statistics ranged from 0.67 to 0.69 for hospitalization and 0.79 to 0.80 for mortality. All measures of frailty yielded strong model calibration. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: All three measures of frailty had similar predictive performance. Discrimination was modest for predicting hospitalization and superior in predicting mortality. This likely reflects the objective nature of mortality as an outcome and the challenges in reducing the complex concept of healthcare utilization to a single variable such as any overnight hospitalization.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".