We previously quantified frailty in aged mice with frailty index (FI) that used specialized equipment to measure health parameters. Here we developed a simplified, noninvasive method to quantify frailty through clinical assessment of C57BL/6J mice (5–28 months) and compared the relationship between FI scores and age in mice and humans. FIs calculated with the original performance-based eight-item FI increased from 0.06±0.01 at 5 months to 0.36±0.06 at 19 months and 0.38±0.04 at 28 months (n = 14). By contrast, the increase was graded with a 31-item clinical FI (0.02±0.005 at 5 months; 0.12±0.008 at 19 months; 0.33±0.02 at 28 months; n = 14). FI scores calculated from 70 self-report items from the first wave of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe were plotted as function of age (n = 30,025 people). The exponential relationship between FI scores and age (normalized to 90% mortality) was similar in mice and humans for the clinical FI but not the eight-item FI. This noninvasive FI based on clinical measures can be used in longitudinal studies to quantify frailty in mice. Unlike the performance-based eight-item mouse FI, the clinical FI exhibits key features of the FI established for use in humans.

BackgroundOlder adults are at an increased risk of death, but not all people of the same age have the same risk. Many methods identify frail people (that is, those at increased risk) but these often require time-consuming interactions with health care providers. We evaluated whether standard laboratory tests on their own, or added to a clinical frailty index (FI), could improve identification of older adults at increased risk of death.MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study, where community dwelling and institutionalized participants in the Canadian Study of Health and Aging who also volunteered for blood collection (n = 1,013) were followed for up to six years. A standard FI (FI-CSHA) was constructed from data obtained during the clinical evaluation and a second, novel FI was constructed from laboratory data plus systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements (FI-LAB). A combined FI included all items from each index. Predictive validity was tested using Cox proportional hazards analysis and discriminative ability by the area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.ResultsOf 1,013 participants, 51.3% had died by six years. The mean baseline value of the FI-LAB was 0.27 (standard deviation 0.11; range 0.05 to 0.63), the FI-CSHA was 0.25 (0.11; 0.02 to 0.72), and the combined FI was 0.26 (0.09; 0.06 to 0.59). In an age- and sex-adjusted model, with each increment in the FI-LAB, the hazard ratios increased by 2.8% (95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.04). The hazard ratios for the FI-CSHA and the combined FI were 1.02 (1.01 to 1.03) and 1.04 (1.03 to 1.05), respectively. The FI-LAB and FI-CSHA remained independently associated with death in the face of the other. The areas under the ROC curves were 0.72 for FI-LAB, 0.73 for FI-CSHA and 0.74 for the combined FI.ConclusionsAn FI based on routine laboratory data can identify older adults at increased risk of death. Additional evaluation of this approach in clinical settings is warranted.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-014-0171-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

OBJECTIVES:To test the proposition, using routinely available clinical data, that deficit accumulation results in loss of redundancy. In keeping with the reliability theory of aging, this would be quantitated by attenuation in the slope of a Frailty Index (FI) with age. The more deficits, the less steep the slope and the less redundancy. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of a prospective cohort study, with 5-year mortality data. SETTING: The clinical sample of the second wave of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand three hundred five people aged 70 and older at baseline. MEASUREMENTS: A FI based on data used for a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA), the slope of the relationship between age and the FI-CGA, the limit value of the FI-CGA, mortality. RESULTS: An age-invariant limit to deficit accumulation was demonstrated; the observed 99% limit was 0.66. At the 25th percentile of deficit accumulation (FI-CGA $ 0.18), the slope of the FI-CGA in relation to age was 0.044 (range 0.038-0.049). When deficits had increased to 75% of the maximum value (FI-CGA $ 0.52), the slope fell to 0.021 (range 0.016-0.027). By the 85th percentile (FI-CGA $ 0.6), the slope had become statistically indistinguishable from 0. CONCLUSION: As predicted by the reliability theory of aging, the rate of deficit accumulation slows with increasing frailty. A FI derived from data routinely collected as part of a CGA can in this way quantify loss of redundancy in older adults. Quantifying loss of redundancy can aid clinical decision-making; its application to individual prognostication in clinical samples warrants further evaluation. J Am Geriatr Soc 58:318-323, 2010.