ReviewGeroScience2026
Frailty assessment in naturally aged mouse models: classification, limitations, and future directions.
Review in GeroScience, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Naturally aged mice provide an important platform for studying frailty because functional decline emerges during biological aging rather than through acute injury or artificial manipulation. This review critically examines major frailty assessment tools used in aged mice, including the mouse frailty index, mouse frailty phenotype, physical function score/vitality score, mouse social frailty index, and mouse cognitive frailty index. We compare their conceptual foundations, scoring procedures, dimensional coverage, reproducibility, mortality associations, intervention responsiveness, and translational correspondence with clinical models such as the Fried phenotype and deficit accumulation frailty index. We also discuss how biological mechanisms linked to the hallmarks of aging, including inflammaging, immunosenescence, mitochondrial dysfunction, cellular senescence, altered nutrient sensing, and impaired stress resilience, may contribute to frailty development. Current instruments capture complementary aspects of frailty but differ in their dependence on subjective observation, cohort-specific thresholds, testing conditions, and validation across sex, strain, laboratory, and outcome. Digital phenotyping, longitudinal trajectories, secondary prognostic models, and measures of latent vulnerability may extend current approaches, but these strategies remain exploratory. Alternative weighting systems and the proposed distinction between pre-frailty and subclinical frailty require prospective validation before they can be considered standardized methods. Clear separation of established instruments from conceptual future directions will improve methodological rigor and translational relevance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42680955What 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.