ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Comparisons of four cognitive-frailty measures in predicting dementia and disability.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundSeveral cognitive-frailty (CF) measurements, such as traditional CF, the CF phenotype, physio-cognitive decline syndrome (PCDS), and motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCRS) have been developed but their predictive abilities for incident dementia and incident disability are seldom compared. We conducted a 2-year prospective study to compare the associations of traditional CF, the CF phenotype, PCDS, and MCRS with incident dementia and incident disability.
methodsIn total, 755 individuals aged 65 years or older, without preexisting dementia or disability, participated in the baseline assessment and were subsequently monitored over a 2-year period. Data on cognitive and frailty components of traditional CF, the CF phenotype, PCDS, and MCRS, were collected. The logistic regression model was used to investigate independent associations of each CF measure with incident dementia and incident disability.
resultsIn total, 505 participants completed the two annual follow-ups. After adjusting for other CF measures, age, and sex, incident dementia was significantly associated with PCDS (odds ratio [OR] = 2.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25 ~ 5.19) but was not significantly associated with traditional CF, the CF phenotype, or MCRS, and incident disability was significantly associated with the CF phenotype (OR = 2.90; 95% CI, 1.59 ~ 5.30) but was not significantly associated with traditional CF, PCDS, or MCRS. After adjusting for other CF measures, age, sex, educational level, and other variables, incident dementia was not independently associated with any CF measure, while the association of incident disability with the CF phenotype remained significant (OR = 2.72; 95% CI, 1.45 ~ 5.11).
conclusionsThe CF phenotype, MCRS, and PCDS can possibly identify a higher number of CF cases than can the traditional CF measure. While the CF phenotype was a significant predictor of incident disability, all four CF measures lacked an independent association with incident dementia over a 2-year period. Future studies with a longer study period are needed to validate our results.
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.