Development and validation of a frailty index for use in the osteoarthritis initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) evaluates the development and progression of osteoarthritis. Frailty captures the heterogeneity in aging. Use of this resource-intensive dataset to answer aging-related research questions could be enhanced by a frailty measure. OBJECTIVE: To: (i) develop a deficit accumulation frailty index (FI) for the OAI; (ii) examine its relationship with age and compare between sexes, (iii) validate the FI versus all-cause mortality and (iv) compare this association with mortality with a modified frailty phenotype. DESIGN: OAI cohort study. SETTING: North America. SUBJECTS: An FI was determined for 4,755/4,796 and 4,149/4,796 who had a valid FI and frailty phenotype. METHODS: Fifty-nine-variables were screened for inclusion. Multivariate Cox regression evaluated the impact of FI or phenotype on all-cause mortality at follow-up (up to 146 months), controlling for age and sex. RESULTS: Thirty-one items were included. FI scores (0.16 ± 0.09) were higher in older adults and among females (both, P < 0.001). By follow-up, 264 people had died (6.4%). Older age, being male, and greater FI were associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (all, P < 0.001). The model including FI was a better fit than the model including the phenotype (AIC: 4,167 vs. 4,178) and was a better predictor of all-cause mortality than the phenotype with an area under receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.652 vs. 0.581. CONCLUSION: We developed an FI using the OAI and validated it in relation to all-cause mortality. The FI may be used to study aging on clinical, functional and structural aspects of osteoarthritis included in the OAI.
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 | 0.022 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".