Frailty and Health Outcomes in People 65 Years or Older Living With Dementia: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although frailty is considered a potentially modifiable risk factor for dementia, its influence on health outcomes in individuals with established dementia remains unclear. This study aims to systematize the current evidence to understand the impact of frailty on the development of adverse outcomes in older adults with dementia. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a systematic review to investigate which adverse outcomes in 65 years or older adults with dementia are influenced by frailty. A comprehensive search was conducted across three databases-MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane-to identify relevant studies addressing this research question as of November 2024. Studies were considered for inclusion if they were observational studies or clinical trials involving individuals with dementia, assessed frailty within this population, and documented adverse health outcomes. Two independent and blinded researchers performed screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. PROSPERO register CRD42024543327. RESULTS: Our search identified 5891 articles, from which 12 were included after screening and eligibility assessment (n = 172,025 participants). Alzheimer's disease was the most studied type of dementia, and the prevalence of frailty ranged from 8% to 65.9%. The reported adverse outcomes associated with frailty in patients suffering from dementia were mortality, institutionalization, functional and cognitive decline, neuropsychiatric symptoms, reduced quality of life, caregiver burden, and hospitalization. DISCUSSION: Understanding frailty in older adults with dementia may inform improved care strategies. Our findings suggest that higher levels of frailty are associated with an increased risk of adverse health outcomes.
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 | 0.010 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".