ArticlePLoS medicine2026
Evaluation of the FI-Lab, a laboratory-based, automated frailty index for acute care: A multicohort study.
Article in PLoS medicine, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLaboratory-based frailty indices (FI-Lab) have shown promise in geriatric medicine research. We aimed, in diverse samples, to determine the optimal construction of an FI-Lab for acute care and evaluate its validity as a measure of latent health status across the adult life span. METHODS AND
findingsOur retrospective multicohort study used emergency department encounters in Boston, USA (MIMIC-IV-ED; 2011-2019) and London, UK (King's College Hospital (KCH); 2017-2020); and a community-based cohort in the UK (UK Biobank; 2006-2010). We evaluated FI-Lab configurations by varying test selection strategies, number of tests, and minimum test thresholds. Sensitivity analyses examined performance across age, ethnicities, sexes, and model types to identify potential blind spots. The primary outcome was 1-year all-cause mortality. We analysed 227,736 visits (113,032 patients) from MIMIC-IV-ED; 152,305 visits (96,843 patients) from KCH; and 492,703 UK Biobank. An FI-Lab calculated from 25 commonly ordered tests (minimum 15 required) demonstrated hazard ratios for 1-year mortality approaching those of chronological age and exceeding the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2). In combined models, hazard ratios for FI-Lab per standard deviation increase were 2.04 (95 %CI [1.99, 2.09]; p < 0.001) in MIMIC-IV-ED, 2.55 (95 %CI [2.42, 2.69]; p < 0.001) in KCH, and 1.87 (95% CI [1.80, 1.94]; p < 0.001) in UK Biobank. Performance was consistent across subject groupings. Discrimination plateaued at 20-40 tests. This was a retrospective study; future work exploring the impact on everyday use requires prospective evaluation, potentially in a randomised controlled trial.
conclusionsThe FI-Lab provides an automated, scalable measure of patient vulnerability that is robust across healthcare settings and populations. A core set of 20-40 commonly ordered tests is sufficient for signal capture. It offers a pragmatic complement to clinical judgement without requiring manual data entry or additional tests.
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.