ArticleScientific reports2025
Association between conicity index and frailty in older Americans: the NHANES cross-sectional study, 2007-2018.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study utilized NHANES data from 2007 to 2018 to investigate the correlation between frailty and the Conicity Index (CI) in individuals aged 60 and above in the United States. The study used NHANES data from 2007 to 2018.CI was calculated as CI = wc / [0.109 × sqrt(bw / Height)]. Frailty was assessed by the frailty index (≥ 0.25). Weighted multivariate logistic regression analysis, subgroup analyses, and interaction tests were used to investigate the connection between CI and the prevalence of frailty. Generalized additive modeling (GAM) was employed to address any non-linear patterns, and the predictive capability of CI for frailty was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. With a 69% rise in the prevalence of frailty for every 0.1 unit increase in the fully adjusted model, the results demonstrated a strong and positive relationship between CI and frailty prevalence (OR: 1.69, 95% CI: 1.53,1.86; P < 0.001). When CI was categorized, the group with the highest CI had a significantly higher prevalence of frailty than the group with the lowest CI (OR = 2.79, 95% CI: 2.22,3.51; P < 0.001). The association between CI and prevalence of frailty was significant in all subgroups. In addition, statistically significant interactions were present in most subgroups. When the CI > reached 1.35, the GAM model demonstrated a threshold effect and a significant nonlinear connection, with a 105% rise in the prevalence of frailty for every 0.1 unit increase in CI. In the male group, CI was a significantly greater indicator of the prevalence of frailty than both BMI and WC. According to this study, frailty in older persons is substantially correlated with a higher CI. Although greater confirmation in large-scale prospective research is required, this study indicates that increased CI is a more reliable predictor of the prevalence of frailty in older men and is significantly linked with its occurrence.
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.