Cathleen Colón-Emeric1,2,3, Carl F Pieper2,3, Kenneth E Schmader1,2,3, Richard Sloane2,3, Allison Bloom4, Micah McClain4, Jay Magaziner5, Kim M Huffman6, Denise Orwig5, Donna M Crabtree7, Heather E Whitson1,2,3. 1. Division of Geriatrics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Geriatric Research Education Clinical Center, Durham Veteran Affairs Medical Center, North Carolina. 3. Duke Claude D. Pepper Older American Independence Center, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 4. Center for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine, Duke University Medical Centre, Durham, North Carolina. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore. 6. Duke Molecular Physiology Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 7. Duke Office of Clinical Research, School of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approaches for quantifying physical resilience in older adults have not been described. METHODS: We apply two conceptual approaches to defining physical resilience to existing longitudinal data sets in which outcomes are measured after an acute physical stressor. A "recovery phenotype" approach uses statistical methods to describe how quickly and completely a patient recovers. Statistical methods using a recovery phenotype approach can consider multiple outcomes simultaneously in a composite score (eg, factor analysis and principal components analysis) or identify groups of patients with similar recovery trajectories across multiple outcomes (eg, latent class profile analysis). An "expected recovery differential" approach quantifies how patients' actual outcomes are compared to their predicted outcome based on a population-derived model and their individual clinical characteristics at the time of the stressor. RESULTS: Application of the approaches identified different participants as being the most or least physically resilient. In the viral respiratory cohort (n = 186) weighted kappa for agreement across resilience quartiles was 0.37 (0.27-0.47). The expected recovery differential approach identified a group with more comorbidities and lower baseline function as highly resilient. In the hip fracture cohort (n = 541), comparison of the expected recovery differentials across 10 outcome measures within individuals provided preliminary support for the hypothesis that there is a latent resilience trait at the whole-person level. CONCLUSIONS: We posit that recovery phenotypes may be useful in clinical applications such as prediction models because they summarize the observed outcomes across multiple measures. Expected recovery differentials offer insight into mechanisms behind physical resilience not captured by age and other comorbidities.
BACKGROUND: Approaches for quantifying physical resilience in older adults have not been described. METHODS: We apply two conceptual approaches to defining physical resilience to existing longitudinal data sets in which outcomes are measured after an acute physical stressor. A "recovery phenotype" approach uses statistical methods to describe how quickly and completely a patient recovers. Statistical methods using a recovery phenotype approach can consider multiple outcomes simultaneously in a composite score (eg, factor analysis and principal components analysis) or identify groups of patients with similar recovery trajectories across multiple outcomes (eg, latent class profile analysis). An "expected recovery differential" approach quantifies how patients' actual outcomes are compared to their predicted outcome based on a population-derived model and their individual clinical characteristics at the time of the stressor. RESULTS: Application of the approaches identified different participants as being the most or least physically resilient. In the viral respiratory cohort (n = 186) weighted kappa for agreement across resilience quartiles was 0.37 (0.27-0.47). The expected recovery differential approach identified a group with more comorbidities and lower baseline function as highly resilient. In the hip fracture cohort (n = 541), comparison of the expected recovery differentials across 10 outcome measures within individuals provided preliminary support for the hypothesis that there is a latent resilience trait at the whole-person level. CONCLUSIONS: We posit that recovery phenotypes may be useful in clinical applications such as prediction models because they summarize the observed outcomes across multiple measures. Expected recovery differentials offer insight into mechanisms behind physical resilience not captured by age and other comorbidities.
Authors: D Orwig; M C Hochberg; A L Gruber-Baldini; B Resnick; R R Miller; G E Hicks; A R Cappola; M Shardell; R Sterling; J R Hebel; R Johnson; J Magaziner Journal: J Frailty Aging Date: 2018
Authors: Sheryl Zimmerman; William G Hawkes; J Richard Hebel; Kathleen M Fox; Eva Lydick; Jay Magaziner Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Brian K Kennedy; Shelley L Berger; Anne Brunet; Judith Campisi; Ana Maria Cuervo; Elissa S Epel; Claudio Franceschi; Gordon J Lithgow; Richard I Morimoto; Jeffrey E Pessin; Thomas A Rando; Arlan Richardson; Eric E Schadt; Tony Wyss-Coray; Felipe Sierra Journal: Cell Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Barbara Resnick; Denise Orwig; Janet Yu-Yahiro; William Hawkes; Michelle Shardell; J Richard Hebel; Sheryl Zimmerman; Justine Golden; Michele Werner; Jay Magaziner Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2007-08
Authors: Cathleen Colón-Emeric; Heather E Whitson; Carl F Pieper; Richard Sloane; Denise Orwig; Kim M Huffman; Janet Prvu Bettger; Daniel Parker; Donna M Crabtree; Ann Gruber-Baldini; Jay Magaziner Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Daniel C Parker; Cathleen Colόn-Emeric; Janet L Huebner; Ching-Heng Chou; Virginia Byers Kraus; Carl F Pieper; Richard Sloane; Heather E Whitson; Denise Orwig; Donna M Crabtree; Jay Magaziner; James R Bain; Michael Muehlbauer; Olga R Ilkayeva; Kim M Huffman Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Svetlana Ukraintseva; Konstantin Arbeev; Matt Duan; Igor Akushevich; Alexander Kulminski; Eric Stallard; Anatoliy Yashin Journal: Mech Ageing Dev Date: 2020-12-16 Impact factor: 5.432
Authors: Thomas Laskow; Jiafeng Zhu; Brian Buta; Julius Oni; Frederick Sieber; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Jeremy Walston; Patricia D Franklin; Ravi Varadhan Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 6.591
Authors: Heather E Whitson; Donna Crabtree; Carl F Pieper; Christine Ha; Sandra Au; Miles Berger; Harvey J Cohen; Jody Feld; Patrick Smith; Katherine Hall; Daniel Parker; Virginia Byers Kraus; William E Kraus; Kenneth Schmader; Cathleen Colón-Emeric Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Sanne M W Gijzel; Heather E Whitson; Ingrid A van de Leemput; Marten Scheffer; Dieneke van Asselt; Jerrald L Rector; Marcel G M Olde Rikkert; René J F Melis Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-09-09 Impact factor: 5.562