SynthesisBMC geriatrics2026
Disability risk prediction models in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2026. 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.
- Machine Learning-Based Multidimensional Health Decline Prediction Framework: Data-Driven Modeling for the Middle-Aged and Elderly Population.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarly identification of disability risk in community-dwelling older adults has emerged as a critical public health priority. An increasing number of studies have focused on developing predictive models for disability risk among community-dwelling older adults. The quality, risk of bias and applicability of these models remain unclear.
objectivesTo systematically review and critically assess the existing disability risk prediction models in community-dwelling older adults.
methodsPubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP) Database and Wanfang Database were searched from inception to February 28, 2025. Two reviewers independently identified eligible articles and extracted data using the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies (CHARMS). The methodological quality, risk of bias, and applicability of the included studies were assessed with the updated Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool integrated with artificial intelligence (PROBAST + AI).
resultsA total of 19 studies involving 19 prediction models were included. 19 models evaluated model discrimination, with the AUC or c-index ranging from 0.620 to 0.853 in the model development section and from 0.650 to 0.804 in the model validation section. And the most common predictors included age, physical function, cognitive function, cardiovascular disease, and sex. According to the PROBAST + AI, eighteen models were rated as high quality concerns in the development section and sixteen models were rated as high risk of bias in the evaluation section, alongside fifteen models were rated as high concerns of applicability.
conclusionsCurrent disability risk prediction models for community-dwelling older adults demonstrate good discriminatory performance but are characterized by significant methodological limitations and high risk of bias. Future research should rigorously adhere to reporting standards for risk prediction models in both developing and evaluating such models for older community populations, with further validation of their clinical applicability in practice.
trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD420251001479.
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.