The frailty of constructs and the construct of frailty in geriatric medicine and research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frailty has been defined as a “state of increased vulnerability” which increases the risk of adverse outcomes. Although there is currently no consensus definition, frailty has been consistently associated with death, institutionalization, and disability. These associations have driven strong, but mostly unheeded, calls from the research and clinical community to include frailty in clinical care processes. Geriatric research and practice rely on age-related constructs which diverge from the traditional biomedical model of disease: frailty, multimorbidity, and other geriatric syndromes are used to describe and characterize the variability in the health status of older adults. Despite interest for such constructs, issues related to their definition, reliability, and applicability in the context of clinical practice have not been well explored.The overarching objective for this dissertation was to explore the conceptual underpinning and clinical applicability of age-related constructs, with an emphasis on frailty. The first objective was to examine whether older adults show increasing heterogeneity with age, as a motivation for developing age-specific constructs. A novel application of methods was used to disentangle the within-age and between-age variability of 34 health characteristics within eight domains in 30,097 participants from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA). I demonstrated that heterogeneity increases with aging, but not for all health characteristics and domains, and not uniformly. Clinical implications and research opportunities of heterogeneity include the importance of the comprehensive geriatric assessment, of measurement and scaling of variables, and the need to develop new multidimensional constructs that distinguish older adults among themselves. The second objective was to examine the measurement of age-related constructs. I investigated the reliability and clinical correlates of reliability of the deficit-accumulation frailty index. Monte Carlo methods were used to simulate 12,000 studies comparing various implementations of the frailty index in 12,080 participants 65 years and older from the CLSA. I showed that the number and composition of items of individual FIs strongly influence their reliability. Descriptive estimates using frailty indices and predictive estimates between frailty indices and mortality varied between implementations. This lack of reliability and stability of estimates lowers the generalizability and clinical application of study findings.The third objective focused on determining the applicability of study results to clinical practice. A literature search was conducted to identify 26 existing frameworks appraising study “applicability.” I analyzed and synthesized frameworks and criteria according to the scope and level of aggregation of the evidence appraised, the target user, and the specific area of applicability. A novel framework to appraise clinical applicability was proposed which categorizes studies into three evidence domains (research domain, practice informing, and practice changing) using six criteria (Validity, Indication-informativeness, Clinical relevance, Originality, Risk-benefit comprehensiveness, and Transposability, VICORT).This framework was used for the fourth objective to appraise the clinical applicability of recently published articles on frailty. A mapping review was conducted by sampling 476 articles published in 2017–2018 and investigating whether these articles informed practice, changed practice, or belonged in the research domain. Among all articles, 63 (13%) articles were categorized as practice informing, 11 (2%) as potentially practice changing, and 1 (0.2%) as clearly practice changing. The lack of indication-informativeness (96%) and originality (83%) were the most important reasons hampering clinical applicability. Recommendations are proposed for future research on frailty, which may also extend to other age-related constructs
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 | 0.041 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".