Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,303

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development and validation of an electronic frailty index using routine primary care electronic health record data

Open access
Clegg, Andrew, Bates, Chris, Young, John, Ryan, Ronan, Nichols, Linda, Ann Teale, Elizabeth, Mohammed, Mohammed A., Parry, John, Marshall, Tom·2016·Age and Ageing

Abstract

BACKGROUND: frailty is an especially problematic expression of population ageing. International guidelines recommend routine identification of frailty to provide evidence-based treatment, but currently available tools require additional resource. OBJECTIVES: to develop and validate an electronic frailty index (eFI) using routinely available primary care electronic health record data. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: retrospective cohort study. Development and internal validation cohorts were established using a randomly split sample of the ResearchOne primary care database. External validation cohort established using THIN database. PARTICIPANTS: patients aged 65-95, registered with a ResearchOne or THIN practice on 14 October 2008. PREDICTORS: we constructed the eFI using the cumulative deficit frailty model as our theoretical framework. The eFI score is calculated by the presence or absence of individual deficits as a proportion of the total possible. Categories of fit, mild, moderate and severe frailty were defined using population quartiles. OUTCOMES: outcomes were 1-, 3- and 5-year mortality, hospitalisation and nursing home admission. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using bivariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Discrimination was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Calibration was assessed using pseudo-R(2) estimates. RESULTS: we include data from a total of 931,541 patients. The eFI incorporates 36 deficits constructed using 2,171 CTV3 codes. One-year adjusted HR for mortality was 1.92 (95% CI 1.81-2.04) for mild frailty, 3.10 (95% CI 2.91-3.31) for moderate frailty and 4.52 (95% CI 4.16-4.91) for severe frailty. Corresponding estimates for hospitalisation were 1.93 (95% CI 1.86-2.01), 3.04 (95% CI 2.90-3.19) and 4.73 (95% CI 4.43-5.06) and for nursing home admission were 1.89 (95% CI 1.63-2.15), 3.19 (95% CI 2.73-3.73) and 4.76 (95% CI 3.92-5.77), with good to moderate discrimination but low calibration estimates. CONCLUSIONS: the eFI uses routine data to identify older people with mild, moderate and severe frailty, with robust predictive validity for outcomes of mortality, hospitalisation and nursing home admission. Routine implementation of the eFI could enable delivery of evidence-based interventions to improve outcomes for this vulnerable group.

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 · 10.1093/ageing/afw039

Cites

18 of 18 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 18 references

Cited by

See all 1,303

Metadata

Authors
Clegg, A., Bates, C., Young, J., Ryan, R., Nichols, L., Ann Teale, E., Mohammed, M. A., Parry, J., & Marshall, T.
Venue
Age and Ageing
Published
2016-03-03
Volume
45
Issue
3
Pages
353-360
ISSN
  • 0002-0729 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2834
OpenAlex
W2291720716
Cited by
1,303
References
18
FWCI
42.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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 an electronic frailty index using routine primary care electronic health record data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ageing/afw039
The paper
Clegg, A., Bates, C., Young, J., Ryan, R., Nichols, L., Ann Teale, E., Mohammed, M. A., Parry, J., & Marshall, T. (2016). Development and validation of an electronic frailty index using routine primary care electronic health record data. Age and Ageing. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afw039

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.