BACKGROUND: There has been little research on the relative importance of frailty markers. The objective was to investigate the association among seven frailty domains (nutrition, physical activity, mobility, strength, energy, cognition, and mood) and their relative contribution in explaining differences among individuals in five samples of older persons. METHODS: Data from five studies of aging were analyzed using multiple correspondence analysis. Aggregation of frailty markers was evaluated using graphical output. Decomposition of variability was used to assess the relative contribution of each marker in each sample. Results were combined across the samples to assess the average contribution. RESULTS: Frailty markers were found to consistently aggregate in each sample, suggesting a possible underlying construct. Physical strength had the highest contribution on average in explaining differences among individuals. Mobility and energy also had large contributions. Nutrition and cognition had the smallest contributions. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide further evidence supporting the notion that frailty domains may belong to a common construct. Physical strength may be the most important discriminating characteristic.
BACKGROUND: There has been little research on the relative importance of frailty markers. The objective was to investigate the association among seven frailty domains (nutrition, physical activity, mobility, strength, energy, cognition, and mood) and their relative contribution in explaining differences among individuals in five samples of older persons. METHODS: Data from five studies of aging were analyzed using multiple correspondence analysis. Aggregation of frailty markers was evaluated using graphical output. Decomposition of variability was used to assess the relative contribution of each marker in each sample. Results were combined across the samples to assess the average contribution. RESULTS: Frailty markers were found to consistently aggregate in each sample, suggesting a possible underlying construct. Physical strength had the highest contribution on average in explaining differences among individuals. Mobility and energy also had large contributions. Nutrition and cognition had the smallest contributions. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide further evidence supporting the notion that frailty domains may belong to a common construct. Physical strength may be the most important discriminating characteristic.
Authors: W M Hopman; T Towheed; T Anastassiades; A Tenenhouse; S Poliquin; C Berger; L Joseph; J P Brown; T M Murray; J D Adachi; D A Hanley; E Papadimitropoulos Journal: CMAJ Date: 2000-08-08 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Rita Rastogi Kalyani; Ravi Varadhan; Carlos O Weiss; Linda P Fried; Anne R Cappola Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2011-08-26 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Stephanie Studenski; Subashan Perera; Dennis Wallace; Julie M Chandler; Pamela W Duncan; Earl Rooney; Michael Fox; Jack M Guralnik Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Vianda S Stel; Johannes H Smit; Saskia M F Pluijm; Marjolein Visser; Dorly J H Deeg; Paul Lips Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: P Forti; F Maioli; E Zagni; T Lucassenn; L Montanari; B Maltoni; G Luca Pirazzoli; G Bianchi; M Zoli Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: John E Morley; Bruno Vellas; G Abellan van Kan; Stefan D Anker; Juergen M Bauer; Roberto Bernabei; Matteo Cesari; W C Chumlea; Wolfram Doehner; Jonathan Evans; Linda P Fried; Jack M Guralnik; Paul R Katz; Theodore K Malmstrom; Roger J McCarter; Luis M Gutierrez Robledo; Ken Rockwood; Stephan von Haehling; Maurits F Vandewoude; Jeremy Walston Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Martine T E Puts; Johanne Monette; Veronique Girre; Christina Wolfson; Michèle Monette; Gerald Batist; Howard Bergman Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-09-01 Impact factor: 3.603