Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40060276›Full record

ReviewClinical interventions in aging2025

The Biological Rationale for Integrating Intrinsic Capacity Into Frailty Models.

Zhuowei Yu, Madia Lozupone, Jie Chen, Zhijun Bao, Qingwei Ruan, Francesco Panza

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical interventions in aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

6 authors.

Zhuowei YuLaboratory of Aging, Anti-Aging & Cognitive Performance, Shanghai Institute of Geriatrics and Gerontology, Huadong Hospital Affiliated to Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Madia LozuponeDepartment of Translational Biomedicine and Neuroscience "DiBraiN", University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
Jie ChenShanghai Key Laboratory of Clinical Geriatrics, Shanghai Institute of Geriatrics and Gerontology, Huadong hospital affiliated to Shanghai Medical college, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Zhijun BaoLaboratory of Aging, Anti-Aging & Cognitive Performance, Shanghai Institute of Geriatrics and Gerontology, Huadong Hospital Affiliated to Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Qingwei RuanLaboratory of Aging, Anti-Aging & Cognitive Performance, Shanghai Institute of Geriatrics and Gerontology, Huadong Hospital Affiliated to Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0001-8528-5305
Francesco PanzaDepartment of Interdisciplinary Medicine, Medical Clinic, and Geriatrics "Cesare Frugoni", University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7220-0656

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The assessment and management of two function-centered clinical care models, frailty and intrinsic capacity decline have been proposed to achieve healthy aging. To implement these two care models, several different guidelines have been advocated by different health organizations, which has resulted in confusion and cost-ineffective results in healthcare practice. Although there are various operational definitions and screening tools of frailty, the most accepted operational definitions are based on the recognition of frailty phenotypes or deficit accumulation-based frailty indexes. Intrinsic capacity, referred to as the total physical and mental capacities for individual to undertake daily tasks in everyday life, is another care model, including five domains. Similar or identical instruments have been used to assess frailty and intrinsic capacity. In the present narrative review, we outlined the biological rationale for integrating intrinsic capacity into frailty models and highlighted the hierarchical and energy-dependent order of the intrinsic capacity domains. The vitality domain or energy metabolism-related capacity, is the highest order dimension and the basis of other intrinsic capacity domains. Vitality vulnerability manifests as a pre-frailty status in function-centered healthy aging. We provided a conceptual framework of frailty phenotypes and frailty indexes based on the hierarchical and energy-dependent order of the intrinsic capacity domains, particularly vitality capacity. To facilitate the clinical translation of the framework, some potential energy metabolism-related biomarkers have also been proposed as critical components for assessing and screening vitality capacity in older age. The integrating framework not only provides testable theoretical hypotheses, particularly about vitality as a foundational element in aging, but could serve as a starting point for further research to unravel the mechanisms of frailty. It also improves cost-effectiveness for optimizing aging interventions in clinical healthcare and public health policies of healthy aging.

Indexed as

AgingFrail ElderlyFrailtyGeriatric AssessmentHealthy AgingActivities of Daily LivingAgedBiomarkersEnergy MetabolismHumansPhenotypeBiomarkersbiomarkersfrailtyfrailty indexfrailty phenotypeintrinsic capacityvitality

Identifiers

PMID40060276
PMCPMC11890019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.