ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Independent and joint associations of intrinsic capacity and frailty index with incident disability and all-cause mortality among older Chinese adults.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intrinsic capacity (IC) and the frailty index (FI) constitute two conceptually distinct frameworks for evaluating health status in later life; however, their comparative and combined prognostic utility for incident disability and all-cause mortality has not been fully elucidated. Methods: This prospective cohort study included 7,168 adults aged ≥60 years from the 2014 wave of the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey. IC was evaluated across five domains and aggregated into a composite score ranging from 0 to 10. FI was derived using a deficit accumulation approach. Incident disability was defined as new-onset limitation in at least one of six basic activities of daily living in 2018. All-cause mortality was ascertained during follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were applied, together with joint association and incremental predictive analyses. Results: In fully adjusted models, higher IC was independently associated with lower odds of incident disability [odds ratio (OR) = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-0.84], whereas higher FI was associated with greater odds of disability (OR per 0.1 increase = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.67-2.23). Similarly, higher IC was associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.82-0.85], whereas higher FI was associated with increased mortality risk (HR per 0.1 increase = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.19-1.31). After mutual adjustment, both IC and FI remained significantly associated with incident disability, whereas only IC remained significantly associated with all-cause mortality. Participants with concomitantly lower IC and higher FI exhibited the greatest risks of both disability (OR = 4.31, 95% CI: 2.65-7.04) and mortality (HR = 2.66, 95% CI: 2.32-3.04). Conclusion: Both IC and FI were significantly associated with incident disability and all-cause mortality among older Chinese adults. The combination of IC and FI identified distinct profiles of functional and mortality risk, while IC showed a stronger association with mortality than FI.
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.