ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2025
Heterogeneity in mortality risk prediction: a study of vulnerable adults in the Canadian longitudinal study on aging.
Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 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.
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMortality prediction models are essential for clinical decision-making, but their performance may vary across patient subgroups. This study aimed to evaluate how a general mortality prediction model performs across subgroups defined by vulnerability factors and to test whether model improvements could improve prediction accuracy.
methodsWe analyzed data from 49,266 participants in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging. A general mortality prediction model (Model A) was developed using Cox proportional hazard regression with LASSO, incorporating variables spanning sociodemographic factors, lifestyle habits, comorbidities, and physical/cognitive function measures. Performance was evaluated across subgroups defined by age, frailty, multimorbidity, cognitive function, and functional impairment using discrimination (c-index), calibration, and Brier scores. We tested two additional strategies: incorporating subgroup-specific variables (Model B) and developing tailored models for different mortality risk categories (Models C1, C2, C3).
resultsOver a median 6-year follow-up, 7.5% (3672) participants died. The general model performed well overall (c-index: 0.82, 95% CI 0.80-0.84; Brier: 0.036, 95% CI 0.032-0.040), but performance varied across subgroups. It was lower in frail individuals (c-index: 0.73, 95% CI 0.71-0.75; Brier: 0.12, 95% CI 0.11-0.13) and those with multiple chronic conditions (c-index: 0.76, 95% CI 0.75-0.78; Brier: 0.08, 95% CI 0.07-0.08), with risk underestimated in these groups. Neither incorporating subgroup variables nor developing risk-stratified models significantly improved performance.
conclusionImportant variability in performance, particularly in vulnerable groups, highlights the limitations of a one-size-fits-all and underscores the need for more granular predictive models that account for subpopulation-specific characteristics to enhance mortality risk prediction.
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.