ArticleAge and ageing2025
Can laboratory test-based frailty indices contribute to frailty screening in emergency departments?
Article in Age and ageing, 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.
- Evaluation of the FI-Lab, a laboratory-based, automated frailty index for acute care: A multicohort study.PLoS medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaboratory-based frailty indices (FI-Labs) offer potential adjuncts and alternatives to clinical assessments. Still, their optimal configuration and construct validity compared with nurse-assessed Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) scores remain unclear.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated five FI-Lab configurations against nurse-assessed CFS scores using data from 74 493 emergency department visits. We examined their association with clinical outcomes and assessed measurement reliability using mixed effects models.
resultsWhile nurse assessments demonstrated superior outcome discrimination (c-statistic 0.726 for 90-day mortality versus 0.718 for best FI-Lab), automated FI-Lab measures showed significantly greater between-visit reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.51-0.76 versus 0.37 for nurse CFS]. The drug-adjusted FI-Lab demonstrated highest reliability (ICC = 0.76) but weaker age associations (β = 0.002, P = .08) compared to other configurations (β = 0.006-0.013, P < .001). In complex models adjusting for illness severity, nurse CFS scores showed stronger mortality associations (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.45-1.66 per standard deviation) compared to FI-Lab configurations (HR range 1.19-1.29). Notably, all frailty measures showed effect sizes comparable to age (HR range 1.37-1.55 per SD).
conclusionsAutomated FI-Lab measures offer a reliability advantage over nurse-assessed CFS scores despite slightly lower predictive validity for mortality. Their comparable effect sizes to age suggest these automated measures capture clinically meaningful patient characteristics. This trade-off between reliability and predictive validity suggests that integrated approaches combining automated screening with targeted clinical assessment may provide optimal frailty identification in emergency settings.
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.