Nutritional and inflammation factors associated with current frailty level and effect of co‐morbidities on the progression of frailty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Frailty is defined as extreme vulnerability, a syndrome that exposes the individual to a higher risk of disability. While risk factors for frailty have been gradually uncovered, the full identification of biochemical factors and co-morbidities influencing frailty remains incomplete. METHODS: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were performed to elucidate the risk factors for the prevalence and progression of frailty. The study included 1035 Japanese female outpatients. At baseline, biochemical markers were measured. Co-morbidities included diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, hypertension, vertebral osteoarthritis, and osteoporosis. Frailty levels were assessed using frailty scores ranging from 0 to 5. Prevalence of frailty was judged by a score of 3 or above, and progression was judged by an increase in the frailty score during the observation period. Multiple regression analysis was used for the cross-sectional analysis, and the Cox hazard model was used for the longitudinal analysis. RESULTS: Of the 1035 selected participants, 212 were diagnosed with frailty. Advanced age and log IL-6 and branched-chain amino acids (BCAA) levels were significant independent risk factors for frailty. Subjects were followed for 7.7 ± 5.9 years and progression was observed in 130 subjects. Older age, the absence of hyperlipidemia, the presence of osteoporosis, and lower frailty scores were identified as significant risk factors for frailty progression. CONCLUSIONS: Inflammatory and nutritional markers exhibited significant associations with the current frailty status, whereas co-morbidities such as osteoporosis or hyperlipidemia emerged as independent risk or protective factors of future frailty progression. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2024; 24: 523-528.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".