Diagnostic Accuracy of Self‐Reported Tools for Frailty Assessment in Older Adults With Cancer: A Diagnostic Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Questionnaires are commonly used for rapid frailty assessment. However, which scale is most appropriate for the identification of frailty in older adults with cancer remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: A diagnostic meta-analysis was conducted to examine the sensitivity and specificity of questionnaire-based assessment tools in detecting frailty among older adults with cancer. METHODS: Five databases were searched for eligible studies from inception to January 26, 2025. Study quality was evaluated using the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the frailty assessment tools were assessed through a bivariate random-effects model. Factors influencing the heterogeneity of sensitivity and specificity values were assessed through moderator analysis, which comprised a subgroup analysis and metaregression. RESULTS: Five questionnaire-based tools (i.e., the Edmonton Frailty Scale, FRAIL scale, Groningen Frailty Indikator [GFI], Tilburg Frailty Indikator, and Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 [VES-13]) for assessing frailty in older adults with cancer were identified in the literature; the most commonly used were the GFI and VES-13. The sensitivity and specificity of the GFI (67% and 81%, respectively) and VES-13 (65% and 81%) were calculated. Studies with a high proportion of male participants had poorer GFI sensitivity. Older patient samples were associated with lower VES-13 sensitivity, and a high prevalence of frailty or patients having stage III-IV cancer was associated with higher sensitivity. CONCLUSION: The GFI and VES-13 demonstrated high specificity but low sensitivity for frailty assessment in older adults with cancer. Frequent assessment with the GFI or VES-13 is recommended to improve frailty detection. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Health-care professionals, including oncology nurses, care managers, and oncologists, can incorporate the GFI and VES-13 into cancer care settings to improve early frailty detection and management. Pre-Registration: The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024505836).
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 | 0.047 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".