Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 506

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Prognostic Index for One-Year Mortality from Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Hospitalized Older Patients

Open access
Pilotto, Alberto, Ferrucci, Luigi, Franceschi, Marilisa, D'Ambrosio, Luigi P., Scarcelli, Carlo, Cascavilla, Leandro, Paris, Francesco, Placentino, Giuliana, Seripa, Davide, Dallapiccola, Bruno, Leandro, Gioacchino·2008·Rejuvenation Research

Abstract

Our objective was to construct and validate a Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI) for 1-year mortality from a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) routinely carried out in elderly patients in a geriatric acute ward. The CGA included clinical, cognitive, functional, nutritional, and social parameters and was carried out using six standardized scales and information on medications and social support network, for a total of 63 items in eight domains. A MPI was developed from CGA data by aggregating the total scores of the eight domains and expressing it as a score from 0 to 1. Three grades of MPI were identified: low risk, 0.0–0.33; moderate risk, 0.34–0.66; and severe risk, 0.67–1.0. Using the proportional hazard models, we studied the predictive value of the MPI for all causes of mortality over a 12-month follow-up period. MPI was then validated in a different cohort of consecutively hospitalized patients. The development cohort included 838 and the validation cohort 857 elderly hospitalized patients. Of the patients in the two cohorts, 53.3 and 54.9% were classified in the low-risk group, respectively (MPI mean value, 0.18 ± 0.09 and 0.18 ± 0.09); 31.2 and 30.6% in the moderate-risk group (0.48 ± 0.09 and 0.49 ± 0.09); 15.4 and 14.2% in the severe-risk group (0.77 ± 0.08 and 0.75 ± 0.07). In both cohorts, higher MPI scores were significantly associated with older age ( p = 0.0001), female sex ( p = 0.0001), lower educational level ( p = 0.0001), and higher mortality ( p = 0.0001). In both cohorts, a close agreement was found between the estimated mortality and the observed mortality after both 6 months and 1 year of follow-up. The discrimination of the MPI was also good, with a ROC area of 0.751 (95%CI, 0.70–0.80) at 6 months and 0.751 (95%CI, 0.71–0.80) at 1 year of follow-up. We conclude that this MPI, calculated from information collected in a standardized CGA, accurately stratifies hospitalized elderly patients into groups at varying risk of mortality.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/rej.2007.0569

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 506

Metadata

Authors
Pilotto, A., Ferrucci, L., Franceschi, M., D'Ambrosio, L. P., Scarcelli, C., Cascavilla, L., Paris, F., Placentino, G., Seripa, D., Dallapiccola, B., & Leandro, G.
Venue
Rejuvenation Research
Published
2008-02
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
151-161
ISSN
  • 1094-5458 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-1684
  • 1557-8577
OpenAlex
W1972916053
Cited by
506
References
6
FWCI
3.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Prognostic Index for One-Year Mortality from Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Hospitalized Older Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1089/rej.2007.0569
The paper
Pilotto, A., Ferrucci, L., Franceschi, M., D'Ambrosio, L. P., Scarcelli, C., Cascavilla, L., Paris, F., Placentino, G., Seripa, D., Dallapiccola, B., & Leandro, G. (2008). Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Prognostic Index for One-Year Mortality from Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Hospitalized Older Patients. Rejuvenation Research. https://doi.org/10.1089/rej.2007.0569

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.