Cited by 1,291Frailty in Older AdultsNutrition and Health in AgingChronic Disease Management Strategies

A comparison of two approaches to measuring frailty in elderly people

Rockwood, K., Andrew, M., Mitnitski, A.·2007·The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many definitions of frailty exist, but few have been directly compared. We compared the relationship between a definition of frailty based on a specific phenotype with one based on an index of deficit accumulation. METHODS: The data come from all 2305 people 70 years old and older who composed the clinical examination cohort of the second wave of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. We tested convergent validity by correlating the measures with each other and with other health status measures, and analyzed cumulative index distributions in relation to phenotype. To test criterion validity, we evaluated survival (institutionalization and all-cause mortality) by frailty index (FI) score, stratified by the phenotypic definitions as "robust," "pre-frail," and "frail." RESULTS: The measures correlated moderately well with each other (R=0.65) and with measures of function (phenotypic definition R=0.66; FI R=0.73) but less well with cognition (phenotypic definition R=-0.35; FI R=-0.58). The median FI scores increased from 0.12 for the robust to 0.30 for the pre-frail and 0.44 for the frail. Survival was also lower with increasing frailty, and institutionalization was more common, but within each phenotypic class, there were marked differences in outcomes based on the FI values-e.g., among robust people, the median 5-year survival for those with lower FI values was 85%, compared with 55% for those with higher FI values. CONCLUSION: The phenotypic definition of frailty, which offers ready clinical operationalization, discriminates broad levels of risk. The FI requires additional clinical translation, but allows the risk of adverse outcomes to be defined more precisely.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/gerona/62.7.738

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A 2011 study re-scaled the phenotype model to make it more continuous, providing better discriminatory capacity.

    “a 2011 study re-scaled the phenotype model to make it more continuous, providing better discriminatory capacity (85).”

    From Frailty in elderly people (2013) · cites this paper as [85]

  • Physiological measurements to identify older people at risk of frailty may help guide development of earlier preventative interventions.

    “physiological measurements to identify older people at risk of frailty may help guide the development of earlier preventative interventions (85).”

    From Frailty in elderly people (2013) · cites this paper as [85]

  • The results yielded by the frailty index have been consistent between surveys evaluated by our group and by others even though not every frailty index considers the same deficits or number of deficits.

    “the results yielded by the frailty index have been consistent between surveys evaluated by our group [4-7] and by others [8-11] even though not every frailty index considers the same deficits, or even the same number of deficits.”

    From A standard procedure for creating a frailty index (2008) · cites this paper as [7]

  • We selected variables at random (boot-strapping) from a list of eligible variables to make up the Frailty Index and have again shown that the results are insensitive to the precise composition of the index.

    “Here, as in some earlier studies, [7,19,31] we have selected variables at random (boot-strapping) from a list of eligible variables to make up the Frailty Index and have again shown that the results are insensitive to the precise composition of the index.”

    From A standard procedure for creating a frailty index (2008) · cites this paper as [7]

  • It does not matter if study A considered 40 deficits from set X and study B considered 60 deficits from set Y; the estimates from each (e.g. rate of deficit accumulation, relationship with mortality, limit) appear to be similar.

    “it does not matter if study A considered 40 deficits from set X of deficits and study B considered 60 deficits from set Y of deficits; the estimates from each (e.g. the rate of deficit accumulation, the relationship between deficit accumulation and mortality, or the limit to deficit accumulation) appear to be similar.”

    From A standard procedure for creating a frailty index (2008) · cites this paper as [7]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rockwood, K., Andrew, M., & Mitnitski, A.
Affiliations
Dalhousie University (CA)
Corresponding author
Rockwood, K.
Venue
The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
Published
2007-07-01
Volume
62
Issue
7
Pages
738-743
ISSN
  • 1079-5006 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-535X
OpenAlex
W2108688205
Cited by
1,291
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 79 · 2024: 103 · 2023: 95 · 2022: 90 · 2021: 108 · 2020: 88 · 2019: 94 · 2018: 65 · 2017: 101 · 2016: 89 · 2015: 67 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 52 · 2012: 42
FWCI
12.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journals of Gerontology Series A (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
Keywords
frailty, Fried frailty phenotype, frailty index, pre-frailty, older adults, convergent validity, criterion validity, survival, institutionalization, all-cause mortality, cognitive function, Canadian Study of Health and Aging
MeSH terms
Aged, Humans, Institutionalization, Models, Theoretical, Phenotype, Survival Rate, Frail Elderly

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