ArticleThe journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences2026
Evaluating frailty index integrity: insights from an international network study.
Article in The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDeficit-accumulation frailty indices (FIs) have rapidly been integrated into health systems worldwide to quantify the state of reduced physiologic reserve to recover from a health insult in the aging population. Common data models (CDMs) have further enabled international, interinstitutional applications of FIs. However, the validity of such applications is unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the validity of 2 common FIs across disparate contexts.
methodsWe conducted an international network study comparing estimates of frailty prevalence from 2 electronic health record (EHR)-based FIs: United States-based Veterans Affairs FI (VAFI) and United Kingdom-based electronic FI (eFI) across 5 research and clinical databases. United States: All of Us (n = 159 721), IQVIA Pharmetrics+ (n = 5 099 557); United Kingdom: IMRD-THIN (n = 3 036 003), IMRD-EMIS (n = 832 455), and BioBank (n = 207 202).
resultsIn US databases, VAFI identified higher proportions of frailty ([VAFI; eFI] All of US: 10.3%; 2.5%, Pharmetrics+: 9.6%; 2%) while in UK databases, the eFI identified higher proportions (IMRD-THIN: <0.003%; 0.08%, IQVIA-EMIS: 0.09%; 0.4%, UK BioBank: 0.03%; 0.1%). Additional manipulations (alternative lookback periods, FI variations) were examined.
conclusionsFrailty prevalence across databases and indices was inconsistent with expected frailty measurement trends. FIs are likely dependent on their development context, such as local coding behaviors and incentives, limiting their external validity despite CDM harmonization. We suggest caution in the application of FIs outside of their development context and recommend further instrument development before more widespread application of FIs using CDMs.
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.