Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32442149›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2020

Predictive Modeling for Frailty Conditions in Elderly People: Machine Learning Approaches.

Adane Tarekegn, Fulvio Ricceri, Giuseppe Costa, Elisa Ferracin, Mario Giacobini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. External validation of an AI-based preoperative frailty index using real-world data.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Adane Tarekegn *Modeling and Data Science, Department of Mathematics, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4005-1238
Fulvio RicceriDepartment of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8749-9737
Giuseppe CostaDepartment of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3187-4889
Elisa FerracinUnit of Epidemiology, Regional Health Service, Local Health Unit Torino 3, Turin, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9784-5127
Mario GiacobiniData Analysis and Modeling Unit, Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7647-5649

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFrailty is one of the most critical age-related conditions in older adults. It is often recognized as a syndrome of physiological decline in late life, characterized by a marked vulnerability to adverse health outcomes. A clear operational definition of frailty, however, has not been agreed so far. There is a wide range of studies on the detection of frailty and their association with mortality. Several of these studies have focused on the possible risk factors associated with frailty in the elderly population while predicting who will be at increased risk of frailty is still overlooked in clinical settings.

objectiveThe objective of our study was to develop predictive models for frailty conditions in older people using different machine learning methods based on a database of clinical characteristics and socioeconomic factors.

methodsAn administrative health database containing 1,095,612 elderly people aged 65 or older with 58 input variables and 6 output variables was used. We first identify and define six problems/outputs as surrogates of frailty. We then resolve the imbalanced nature of the data through resampling process and a comparative study between the different machine learning (ML) algorithms - Artificial neural network (ANN), Genetic programming (GP), Support vector machines (SVM), Random Forest (RF), Logistic regression (LR) and Decision tree (DT) - was carried out. The performance of each model was evaluated using a separate unseen dataset.

resultsPredicting mortality outcome has shown higher performance with ANN (TPR 0.81, TNR 0.76, accuracy 0.78, F1-score 0.79) and SVM (TPR 0.77, TNR 0.80, accuracy 0.79, F1-score 0.78) than predicting the other outcomes. On average, over the six problems, the DT classifier has shown the lowest accuracy, while other models (GP, LR, RF, ANN, and SVM) performed better. All models have shown lower accuracy in predicting an event of an emergency admission with red code than predicting fracture and disability. In predicting urgent hospitalization, only SVM achieved better performance (TPR 0.75, TNR 0.77, accuracy 0.73, F1-score 0.76) with the 10-fold cross validation compared with other models in all evaluation metrics.

conclusionsWe developed machine learning models for predicting frailty conditions (mortality, urgent hospitalization, disability, fracture, and emergency admission). The results show that the prediction performance of machine learning models significantly varies from problem to problem in terms of different evaluation metrics. Through further improvement, the model that performs better can be used as a base for developing decision-support tools to improve early identification and prediction of frail older adults.

Indexed as

classificationelderly peoplefrailtygenetic programmingimbalanced datasetmachine learningpredictive modeling

Identifiers

PMID32442149
PMCPMC7303829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.