ArticleGeroScience2024
Prognostic accuracy of 70 individual frailty biomarkers in predicting mortality in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging.
Article in GeroScience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Serum Periostin as a Complementary Biomarker of Frailty in Type 2 Diabetes: A Pilot Study Using the FRAIL Scale.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Plasma phosphorylated tau and cerebrovascular burden predict emergency department use in dependent older patients.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Article
- High frailty index scores predict mortality and changes in blood-based biomarkers in aging female mice.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2026Article
- Review
- Associations between frailty, biomarkers of cerebral pathology, cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms: a memory clinic study.The Journal of frailty & aging · 2026Article
- Exploring heart rate variability as a biomarker for frailty: A narrative review.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026Review
- Clinical and environmental factors, functional status, and multimorbidity-stratifying progression and prognosis of multimorbidity, frailty, and disability: the Age-It Research Program.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2025Article
- A proteomic signature of healthspan.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- A proteomic signature of healthspan.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Biomarker integration and biosensor technologies enabling AI-driven insights into biological aging.Frontiers in aging · 2025Review
- Prediction of Osteoporotic Hip Fracture Outcome: Comparative Accuracy of 27 Immune-Inflammatory-Metabolic Markers and Related Conceptual Issues.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Frailty trajectories preceding dementia: an individual-level analysis of four cohort studies in the United States and United Kingdom.Research square · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The frailty index (FI) uses a deficit accumulation approach to derive a single, comprehensive, and replicable indicator of age-related health status. Yet, many researchers continue to seek a single "frailty biomarker" to facilitate clinical screening. We investigated the prognostic accuracy of 70 individual biomarkers in predicting mortality, comparing each with a composite FI. A total of 29,341 individuals from the comprehensive cohort of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging were included (mean, 59.4 ± 9.9 years; 50.3% female). Twenty-three blood-based biomarkers and 47 test-based biomarkers (e.g., physical, cardiac, cardiology) were examined. Two composite FIs were derived: FI-Blood and FI-Examination. Mortality status was ascertained using provincial vital statistics linkages and contact with next of kin. Areas under the curve were calculated to compare prognostic accuracy across models (i.e., age, sex, biomarker, FI) in predicting mortality. Compared to an age-sex only model, the addition of individual biomarkers demonstrated improved model fit for 24/70 biomarkers (11 blood, 13 test-based). Inclusion of FI-Blood or FI-Examination improved mortality prediction when compared to any of the 70 biomarker-age-sex models. Individual addition of seven biomarkers (walking speed, chair rise, time up and go, pulse, red blood cell distribution width, C-reactive protein, white blood cells) demonstrated an improved fit when added to the age-sex-FI model. FI scores had better mortality risk prediction than any biomarker. Although seven biomarkers demonstrated improved prognostic accuracy when considered alongside an FI score, all biomarkers had worse prognostic accuracy on their own. Rather than a single biomarker test, implementation of routine FI assessment in clinical settings may provide a more accurate and reliable screening tool to identify those at increased risk of adverse outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.