Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 234

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

Validation and Comparison of Two Frailty Indexes: The MOBILIZE Boston Study

Open access
Kiely, Dan K., Cupples, L. Adrienne, Lipsitz, Lewis A.·2009·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To validate two established frailty indexes and compare their ability to predict adverse outcomes in a diverse, elderly, community‐dwelling sample of men and women. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: A diverse defined geographic area of Boston. PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred sixty‐five community‐dwelling participants in the Maintenance of Balance, Independent Living, Intellect, and Zest in the Elderly Boston Study. MEASUREMENTS: Two published frailty indexes, recurrent falls, disability, overnight hospitalization, emergency department (ED) visits, chronic medical conditions, self‐reported health, physical function, cognitive ability (including executive function), and depression. One index was developed from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF) and the other from the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). RESULTS: The SOF frailty index classified 77.1% as robust, 18.7% as prefrail, and 4.2% as frail. The CHS frailty index classified 51.2% as robust, 38.8% as prefrail, and 10.0% as frail. Both frailty indexes (SOF; CHS) were similar in their ability to predict key geriatric outcomes such as recurrent falls (hazard ratio (HR) frail =2.2, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.2–4.0; HR frail =1.9, 95% CI=1.2–3.1), overnight hospitalization (odds ratio (OR) frail =3.5, 95% CI=1.5–8.0; OR frail =4.4, 95% CI=2.4–8.2), ED visits (OR frail =3.5, 95% CI=1.4,8.8; OR frail =3.1, 95% CI=1.6–5.9), and disability (OR frail =5.4, 95% CI=2.3–12.3; OR frail =7.7, 95% CI=4.0–14.7), as well as chronic medical conditions, physical function, cognitive ability, and depression. CONCLUSION: Two established frailty indexes were validated using an independent elderly sample of diverse men and women; both indexes were good at distinguishing geriatric conditions and predicting recurrent falls, overnight hospitalization, and ED visits according to level of frailty. Although both indexes are good measures of frailty, the simpler SOF index may be easier and more practical in a clinical setting.

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 · 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02394.x

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 234

Metadata

Authors
Kiely, D. K., Cupples, L. A., & Lipsitz, L. A.
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-08-28
Volume
57
Issue
9
Pages
1532-1539
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
OpenAlex
W2133812567
Cited by
234
References
6
FWCI
8.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Validation and Comparison of Two Frailty Indexes: The MOBILIZE Boston Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02394.x
The paper
Kiely, D. K., Cupples, L. A., & Lipsitz, L. A. (2009). Validation and Comparison of Two Frailty Indexes: The MOBILIZE Boston Study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02394.x

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.