Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41904376›Full record

Observational studyBMC geriatrics2026

Development of a frailty screening tool using components from clinical parameters and frailty criteria for Thai community-dwelling older adults.

Rujapope Sutiwisesak, Chawin Korsirikoon, Saliltip Khamrangsee, Peerapa Techaniyom, Pitaksin Chitta, Busadee Pratumvinit, Atchara Dawangpa, Wongsathit Wongloet, Witchayaporn Kaewboonruang, Prasert Assantachai and 8 more

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Rujapope Sutiwisesak *Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Chawin Korsirikoon *Department of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Saliltip KhamrangseeDepartment of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Peerapa TechaniyomDepartment of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pitaksin ChittaDepartment of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Busadee PratumvinitDepartment of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Atchara DawangpaDepartment of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Wongsathit WongloetDepartment of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Witchayaporn KaewboonruangDepartment of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Prasert AssantachaiDepartment of Preventive and Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Weerasak MuangpaisanDepartment of Preventive and Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Tanu-Udom ManeesingDepartment of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Allied Health Science, Burapha University, Chonburi, Thailand.
Orawan SupapuengDivision of Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Research, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Jarupa SoongsathitanonDepartment of Immunology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Tararaj DharakulDepartment of Immunology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Kobporn BoonnakDepartment of Immunology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
John J BorkowskiDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA.
Chanachai Sae-LeeDepartment of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. chanachai.sae@mahidol.ac.th.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComprehensive frailty assessment is crucial for longitudinal care in older adults but is often impractical in community, rural, or understaffed settings. This study aimed to determine key identifiers of frailty from different assessment tools and use them to develop a screening tool for frailty status using data from community-dwelling older adults in Bangkok, Thailand.

methodsThis cross-sectional study recruited 848 community-dwelling participants aged above 60 years during October 2022 and November 2023. Comprehensive data, including demographics, socioeconomic status, physical health, lifestyle, and laboratory results were collected. Frailty status was determined using Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP), the FRAIL scale, Kihon Checklist (KCL), and Thai Frailty Index (TFI). A decision tree classification model was developed using an exhaustive CHAID algorithm, with variables selected via initial screening for multicollinearity and multinomial logistic regression. The dataset was split into training (80%) and testing (20%) sets for validation.

resultsFrailty status varied across assessment tools and showed some discrepancies. The final three-layer decision tree using five key predictors: 4-meter gait speed lower than 1 m/s, unintentional weight loss in one year more than 5%, experiencing difficulties in chewing hard/solid food, KCL1 (Do you go out by bus or train by yourself? ), and KCL25 (In the last 2 weeks, have you felt tired without a reason? ). Gait speed was identified as the most important predictor. The model achieved an overall accuracy of 0.751 on the training data and 0.776 on the testing data. It demonstrated strong performance in identifying robust individuals, with a correct classification rate (recall) of 1.000 in the testing dataset, and 0.603 and 0.731, for pre-frail and frail individuals respectively, in the testing dataset. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values were 0.896 for robust, 0.740 for pre-frail, and 0.813 for frail classifications. For practicality, the decision tree can be collapsed down to only 3 questions to identify “non-robust” individuals for comprehensive frailty assessment referral.

conclusionsOur study developed a practical and scalable data-driven decision tree for rapid community-based frailty identification. By combining a simple physical test (gait speed), percentage of weight loss, and a specific KCL item, this tool offers a cost-effective method to classify frailty status, particularly robust individuals. Its simplicity makes it suitable for use even by less experienced staff, supporting early identification and referral of at-risk older adults who would benefit from timely intervention.

Indexed as

Frail ElderlyFrailtyGeriatric AssessmentIndependent LivingMass ScreeningAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesDecision TreesFemaleHumansMaleThailandCommunity-dwellingDecision treeFrailtyFrailty screening toolOlder adults

Identifiers

PMID41904376
PMCPMC13154469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.