Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28549083›Full record

ArticleThe journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences2017

A Comparison of Two Mouse Frailty Assessment Tools.

Alice E Kane, Aniko Huizer-Pajkos, John Mach, Sarah J Mitchell, Rafael de Cabo, David G Le Couteur, Susan E Howlett, Sarah N Hilmer

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Physiological Systems in Promoting Frailty.Comprehensive Physiology · 2022
    Review
  12. Sex Differences in the Relation Between Frailty and Endothelial Dysfunction in Old Mice.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Allicin Reversed the Process of Frailty in Aging Male Fischer 344 Rats With Osteoporosis.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Alice E KaneLaboratory of Ageing and Pharmacology, Kolling Institute of Medical Research and Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Aniko Huizer-PajkosLaboratory of Ageing and Pharmacology, Kolling Institute of Medical Research and Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
John MachLaboratory of Ageing and Pharmacology, Kolling Institute of Medical Research and Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sarah J MitchellTranslational Gerontology Branch, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Rafael de CaboTranslational Gerontology Branch, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
David G Le CouteurBiogerontology Laboratory, Centre for Education and Research on Aging and ANZAC Research Institute, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Susan E HowlettDepartment of Pharmacology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Sarah N HilmerLaboratory of Ageing and Pharmacology, Kolling Institute of Medical Research and Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

Aging Intervention ProgramZIAAG000363 · NIA · NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING · PI DE CABO, RAFAEL · 2009 to 2025
$9.0M
Study of Longitudinal Aging in MiceZIAAG000335 · NIA · NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING · PI DE CABO, RAFAEL · 2017 to 2025
$5.0M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mouse clinical frailty index and the mouse frailty phenotype assessment are two recently developed tools used to assess frailty in mice. The objectives of this study were to investigate whether the same mice are identified as frail with both tools and to examine the association of each of the assessment tools with age and frailty-related outcomes. Frailty was measured using both tools in old (~24 months; n = 36) C57BL/6 male mice. After 2 weeks, blood pressure and heart rate were measured and serum samples were collected for analysis of alanine aminotransferase, creatinine, and albumin levels. The mouse frailty phenotype assessment identified no mice as frail but modification of the assessment tool identified six mice as frail. The mouse clinical frailty index identified 16 mice as frail and the agreement between the two scales was 50.0%. Increasing clinical frailty index scores were correlated with low serum alanine aminotransferase, as well as decreased heart rate, and reduced heart rate variance. We conclude that, consistent with equivalent frailty assessment scales in humans, both tools have value but do not necessarily identify the same mice as frail.

Indexed as

Frail ElderlyModels, AnimalPhysical Conditioning, AnimalAgedAgingAnimalsComparative Effectiveness ResearchGeriatric AssessmentHealth Status IndicatorsHumansMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMotor ActivityAnimal modelsDeficit accumulationDeficit indexFrailty indexFrailty phenotype

Identifiers

PMID28549083
PMCPMC5861875

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.