ArticleDigital health
Developing and validating an interpretable machine learning model for frailty risk prediction in patients with chronic diseases.
Article in Digital health. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Chronic diseases and frailty are both prevalent among middle-aged and older adults. Individuals with chronic disorders are at a higher risk of developing frailty. This study aims to develop and validate a machine learning model for predicting frailty risk among middle-aged and older adults with chronic diseases, and to assess their generalizability across Chinese and American populations. Method: Data from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) were utilized and split into a training set and an internal validation set at a ratio of 7:3. A subset from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) served as the external validation set. Seven machine learning algorithms were employed to predict frailty risk, with feature selection performed using LASSO regression. The SHapley Additive explanation (SHAP) analysis was applied to enhance model interpretability. Results: Among the 8,535 CHARLS participants, frailty was identified in 23.7% of patients. The Gradient Boosting Decision Tree (GBDT) model demonstrated the best decision-making performance compared to other models, with an AUC of 0.815 (95% CI: 0.797, 0.833) in the internal validation set, accuracy of 0.735 (95% CI: 0.681, 0.752), sensitivity of 0.751 (95% CI: 0.722, 0.844), and specificity of 0.730 (95% CI: 0.633, 0.6752). In the external validation set, the GBDT model achieved an AUC of 0.748 (95% CI: 0.721, 0.775). SHAP revealed the five most important predictors influencing frailty risk: sleep duration, education level, cognitive impairment, age, and visual impairment. Conclusion: The GBDT model developed effectively predicts the risk of frailty in middle-aged and older adult patients and may serve as a practical tool for the early identification of high-risk populations. In the future, the generalizability of this model requires validation across more diverse cultural contexts to enhance its broader applicability.
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.