纵向虚弱评估的总结测量与健康结果的关联。

Benjamin Seligman,Dae Hyun Kim,Ariela Orkaby
{"title":"纵向虚弱评估的总结测量与健康结果的关联。","authors":"Benjamin Seligman,Dae Hyun Kim,Ariela Orkaby","doi":"10.1093/gerona/glaf161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nAssessment of frailty has become common in clinical settings to risk-stratify older adults. Understanding how to use repeated measurements answers important questions both for the clinical use of serial assessments and understanding frailty trajectories.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nUsing 2012-16 Health and Retirement Study data, we calculated six summary measures of assessments of frailty index (FI, 3 assessments) and Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP, 2 assessments): most recent value, maximum, minimum, mean, standard deviation (SD), and delta. We assessed the association of scaled values with mortality and institutionalization between 2016 and 2018, and three measures of epigenetic aging collected in 2016 using Cox, logistic, and linear regression respectively with adjustment for age, sex, and smoking. We then used LASSO regression to determine which summary measures were most often retained.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\n14,451 and 2,196 individuals had complete data for FI and FFP respectively. The maximum and most recent frailty values had the strongest associations with the outcomes considered, while those of SD and delta were weakest. In LASSO regressions, the maximum and most recent values were most commonly retained (12-13 of 20 regressions), followed by SD (7), mean (6), and minimum and delta (1 each).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nThese findings show that maximum and most recent values of frailty tend to be most strongly associated with mortality. For clinicians, this means that the most recent assessment may be sufficient for many purposes and if historical data are unavailable.\r\n\r\nFUNDING\r\nNational Institute on Aging; Office of Research and Development Department of Veterans Affairs).","PeriodicalId":22892,"journal":{"name":"The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Associations of Summary Measures of Longitudinal Frailty Assessments with Health Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin Seligman,Dae Hyun Kim,Ariela Orkaby\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/gerona/glaf161\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nAssessment of frailty has become common in clinical settings to risk-stratify older adults. Understanding how to use repeated measurements answers important questions both for the clinical use of serial assessments and understanding frailty trajectories.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nUsing 2012-16 Health and Retirement Study data, we calculated six summary measures of assessments of frailty index (FI, 3 assessments) and Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP, 2 assessments): most recent value, maximum, minimum, mean, standard deviation (SD), and delta. We assessed the association of scaled values with mortality and institutionalization between 2016 and 2018, and three measures of epigenetic aging collected in 2016 using Cox, logistic, and linear regression respectively with adjustment for age, sex, and smoking. We then used LASSO regression to determine which summary measures were most often retained.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\n14,451 and 2,196 individuals had complete data for FI and FFP respectively. The maximum and most recent frailty values had the strongest associations with the outcomes considered, while those of SD and delta were weakest. In LASSO regressions, the maximum and most recent values were most commonly retained (12-13 of 20 regressions), followed by SD (7), mean (6), and minimum and delta (1 each).\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nThese findings show that maximum and most recent values of frailty tend to be most strongly associated with mortality. For clinicians, this means that the most recent assessment may be sufficient for many purposes and if historical data are unavailable.\\r\\n\\r\\nFUNDING\\r\\nNational Institute on Aging; Office of Research and Development Department of Veterans Affairs).\",\"PeriodicalId\":22892,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glaf161\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glaf161","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:虚弱评估在临床环境中对老年人进行风险分层已经变得很常见。了解如何使用重复测量回答了临床使用系列评估和了解脆弱轨迹的重要问题。方法利用2012- 2016年健康与退休研究数据,我们计算了衰弱指数(FI, 3个评估)和Fried衰弱表型(FFP, 2个评估)的6个综合评估指标:最近值、最大值、最小值、平均值、标准差(SD)和delta。我们评估了2016年至2018年间量表值与死亡率和机构化的关系,并分别使用Cox、logistic和线性回归评估了2016年收集的三种表观遗传衰老指标,并调整了年龄、性别和吸烟情况。然后我们使用LASSO回归来确定哪些汇总度量最常被保留。结果FI和FFP数据完整者分别为14451例和2196例。最大和最近的脆弱值与考虑的结果有最强的关联,而SD和delta的关联最弱。在LASSO回归中,最大值和最近的值最常被保留(20个回归中的12-13个),其次是SD (7), mean (6), minimum和delta(各1)。结论:这些发现表明,最大和最近的虚弱值与死亡率的关系最为密切。对于临床医生来说,这意味着如果没有历史数据,最新的评估可能对许多目的来说都是足够的。美国老龄研究所;退伍军人事务部研究与发展办公室)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Associations of Summary Measures of Longitudinal Frailty Assessments with Health Outcomes.
BACKGROUND Assessment of frailty has become common in clinical settings to risk-stratify older adults. Understanding how to use repeated measurements answers important questions both for the clinical use of serial assessments and understanding frailty trajectories. METHODS Using 2012-16 Health and Retirement Study data, we calculated six summary measures of assessments of frailty index (FI, 3 assessments) and Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP, 2 assessments): most recent value, maximum, minimum, mean, standard deviation (SD), and delta. We assessed the association of scaled values with mortality and institutionalization between 2016 and 2018, and three measures of epigenetic aging collected in 2016 using Cox, logistic, and linear regression respectively with adjustment for age, sex, and smoking. We then used LASSO regression to determine which summary measures were most often retained. RESULTS 14,451 and 2,196 individuals had complete data for FI and FFP respectively. The maximum and most recent frailty values had the strongest associations with the outcomes considered, while those of SD and delta were weakest. In LASSO regressions, the maximum and most recent values were most commonly retained (12-13 of 20 regressions), followed by SD (7), mean (6), and minimum and delta (1 each). CONCLUSIONS These findings show that maximum and most recent values of frailty tend to be most strongly associated with mortality. For clinicians, this means that the most recent assessment may be sufficient for many purposes and if historical data are unavailable. FUNDING National Institute on Aging; Office of Research and Development Department of Veterans Affairs).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信