Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 186

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparing the Prognostic Accuracy for All-Cause Mortality of Frailty Instruments: A Multicentre 1-Year Follow-Up in Hospitalized Older Patients

Open access
Pilotto, Alberto, Rengo, Franco, Marchionni, Niccolò, Sancarlo, Daniele, Fontana, Andrea, Panza, Francesco, Ferrucci, Luigi, on behalf of the FIRI-SIGG Study Group·2012·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0029090
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a dynamic age-related condition of increased vulnerability characterized by declines across multiple physiologic systems and associated with an increased risk of death. We compared the predictive accuracy for one-month and one-year all-cause mortality of four frailty instruments in a large population of hospitalized older patients in a prospective multicentre cohort study. METHODS AND FINDINGS: On 2033 hospitalized patients aged ≥ 65 years from twenty Italian geriatric units, we calculated the frailty indexes derived from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (FI-SOF), based on the cumulative deficits model (FI-CD), based on a comprehensive geriatric assessment (FI-CGA), and the Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI). The overall mortality rates were 8.6% after one-month and 24.9% after one-year follow-up. All frailty instruments were significantly associated with one-month and one-year all-cause mortality. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves estimated from age- and sex-adjusted logistic regression models, accounting for clustering due to centre effect, showed that the MPI had a significant higher discriminatory accuracy than FI-SOF, FI-CD, and FI-CGA after one month (areas under the ROC curves: FI-SOF = 0.685 vs. FI-CD = 0.738 vs. FI-CGA = 0.724 vs. MPI = 0.765, p<0.0001) and one year of follow-up (areas under the ROC curves: FI-SOF = 0.694 vs. FI-CD = 0.729 vs. FI-CGA = 0.727 vs. MPI = 0.750, p<0.0001). The MPI showed a significant higher discriminatory power for predicting one-year mortality also in hospitalized older patients without functional limitations, without cognitive impairment, malnourished, with increased comorbidity, and with a high number of drugs. CONCLUSIONS: All frailty instruments were significantly associated with short- and long-term all-cause mortality, but MPI demonstrated a significant higher predictive power than other frailty instruments in hospitalized older patients.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0029090

Cites

12 of 12 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 12 references

Cited by

See all 186

Metadata

Authors
Pilotto, A., Rengo, F., Marchionni, N., Sancarlo, D., Fontana, A., Panza, F., Ferrucci, L., & on behalf of the FIRI-SIGG Study Group
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2012-01-11
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
e29090
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0029090
OpenAlex
W2073237861
Cited by
186
References
12
FWCI
7.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Comparing the Prognostic Accuracy for All-Cause Mortality of Frailty Instruments: A Multicentre 1-Year Follow-Up in Hospitalized Older Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0029090
The paper
Pilotto, A., Rengo, F., Marchionni, N., Sancarlo, D., Fontana, A., Panza, F., Ferrucci, L., & on behalf of the FIRI-SIGG Study Group. (2012). Comparing the Prognostic Accuracy for All-Cause Mortality of Frailty Instruments: A Multicentre 1-Year Follow-Up in Hospitalized Older Patients. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029090

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.