ArticleGeroScience2024
Predictive ability of both the healthy aging index and the frailty index for all-cause mortality.
Article in GeroScience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A biological age based on common clinical markers predicts health trajectory and mortality risk in dogs.GeroScience · 2025Article
- Proposal for a revised Barthel index classification based on mortality risk assessment in functional dependence for basic activities of daily living.Frontiers in public health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimWe aimed to develop and assess a modified healthy aging index (HAI) among Chileans aged 60 years and older and compare its predictive ability for all-cause mortality risk with the frailty index (FI).
methodsThis prospective study analyzed data from the Chilean National Health Survey (CNHS) conducted in 2009-2010. We included 847 adults with complete data to construct the HAI and FI. The HAI comprised five indicators (lung function, systolic blood pressure, fasting glucose, cognitive status, and glomerular filtration rate), while the FI assessed frailty using a 36-item scale. HAI scores were calculated by summing the indicator scores, ranging from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating poorer health. Receiver operating curves (ROC) and area under the curve (AUC) were used to assess predictive validity. Associations with all-cause mortality were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted by confounders.
resultsThe mean HAI score was 4.06, while the FI score was 0.24. The AUC for mortality was higher for the HAI than the FI (0.640, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.601 to 0.679 vs. 0.586, 95% CI 0.545 to 0.627). After adjusting for confounders, the FI showed a higher mortality risk compared to the HAI (2.63, 95% CI 1.76 to 3.51 vs. 1.16, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.26).
conclusionThe FI and HAI were valid predictors for all-cause mortality in the Chilean population. Integrating these indices into research and clinical practice can significantly enhance our capacity to identify at-risk individuals.
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.