ArticleGeroScience2025
Evaluating frailty assessment tools and biological frailty markers in C57BL/6 female mice.
Article in GeroScience, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Frailty is a complex condition characterized by a decline in multiple physiological systems, compromising an individual's ability to maintain homeostasis. The onset and progression of frailty are linked to negative health outcomes such as disability, hospitalization, and mortality. To better understand frailty mechanisms, animal models have become valuable due to their accessibility to critical tissues and the ability to control variables. This study investigates frailty in female C57BL/6JN mice by comparing the two most widely accepted frailty assessment tools-the Physical Phenotype (PP) and the Frailty Index (FI). While FI relies on the accumulation of health deficits, PP focuses on functional physical performance. Our results suggest that these tools are complementary rather than interchangeable, each targeting distinct markers of frailty. To address the limitations of both, we propose a new combined assessment tool, the Vitality Phenotype (VP), which integrates physical performance and health deficits into a more comprehensive evaluation. We also explore the challenges in standardizing frailty cutoff values and the need for a reference group to enhance the accuracy of frailty identification. Lastly, we investigate the correlation between frailty criteria and biological markers, particularly bone mineral density (BMD), which shows a significant relationship with physical performance metrics such as grip strength and voluntary wheel activity, highlighting its potential role in frailty pathophysiology.
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.