ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Physical frailty identification using machine learning to explore the 5-item FRAIL scale, Cardiovascular Health Study index, and Study of Osteoporotic Fractures index.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benchmarking Interpretable Machine Learning for Frailty Screening in Older Adults Using Routine Clinical Variables with and Without SARC-F: A Pilot Diagnostic Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Explainable Machine Learning Approaches Predict Frailty and Adverse Outcomes in Older Adults: Development and Validation with Two Longitudinal Cohorts.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Machine learning algorithms to predict frailty in older adults in China: a cross-sectional study.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- Frailty in older adults patients: a prospective observational cohort study on subtype identification.European journal of medical research · 2025Observational
- Fragile hearts: Unveiling the crucial layers of frailty in elderly patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions.World journal of clinical cases · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Physical frailty is an important issue in aging societies. Three models of physical frailty assessment, the 5-Item fatigue, resistance, ambulation, illness and loss of weight (FRAIL); Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS); and Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF) indices, have been regularly used in clinical and research studies. However, no previous studies have investigated the predictive ability of machine learning (ML) for physical frailty assessment. The aim was to use two ML algorithms, random forest (RF) and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), to predict these three physical frailty assessment models. Materials and methods: Questionnaires regarding demographic characteristics, lifestyle habits, living environment, and physical frailty assessment were answered by 445 participants aged 60 years and above. The RF and XGBoost algorithms were used to assess their scores for the three physical frailty indices. Furthermore, feature importance and Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) were used to determine the important physical frailty factors. Results: The XGBoost algorithm obtained higher accuracy for predicting the three physical frailty indices; the areas under the curve obtained by the XGBoost algorithm for the 5-Item FRAIL, CHS, and SOF indices were 0.84. 0.79, and 0.69, respectively. The feature importance and SHAP of the XGBoost algorithm revealed that systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, age, and body mass index play important roles in all three physical frailty models. Conclusion: The XGBoost algorithm has a more accurate predictive rate than RF across all three physical frailty assessments. Thus, ML can be a useful tool for the early detection of physical frailty.
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.