Five Factor Frailty Measure. Psychometrically Robust Research Tool for the English Longitudinal Study on Ageing.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Availability of large longitudinal population health and aging studies, such as the English Longitudinal Study on Ageing, hold many opportunities for the examination of the development of Frailty over time. Lacking are psychometrically robust longitudinal measurement of the concepts of frailty required for accurate and reliable estimates and identification of frail individuals. Objectives. Development of a psychometrically robust longitudinal research tool of Frailty. The tool is to be easy to replicate for future use in health and aging research. Participants/Measurements. Data comes from four waves of ELSA (2014-2017); N=39,528. Six domains of health status deficits that may measure frailty were used: Mobility, Daily Function, Self-rated general health, Self-rated pain, Depression, Self-report doctor diagnoses of health. Design. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of common-self-reported deficits available across four waves of longitudinal data were compared to determine which deficits were a best fit for a research-based frailty index. Standardized regression factor scores were calculated to represent individual’s placement in factors identified from EFA. Cross-sectional validation and reliability are reported. Results. Five-Factors of Frailty found were consistent across ELSA waves. Mobility/Severe Pain, Planning/Self Care, Depression, Moderate Pain/Movement/Arthritis and Cardio-Metabolic. The variable make-up of each factor differed between males and females. Psychometric properties of the five factor frailty model were taken into account at each stage of development (factorability/sampling adequacy, cross-sectional replicability, internal consistency, low interdeterminacy, relations with age).Conclusions. Five distinct factors of an accumulation of deficits approach to frailty were found. Use and development of the five factors of frailty research tool are outlined. This research tool will aid researchers in determining the complex risk factors and outcomes of empirically derived components of frailty in ELSA.
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 | 0.014 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".