Use of routine clinical data in adults with chronic diseases for identifying risk of frailty: results from the UK Biobank study
LANDRE, B.; Silva, G. C.; Fayosse, A.; Meneghel Danilevicz, I.; Lieb, W.; Sabia, S.; Singh Manoux, A.; Sturmer, P.
Show abstract
Frailty assessment is increasingly recommended for risk stratification in chronic disease management, but systematic clinical screening for frailty remains difficult to implement because it is resource-intensive. We investigated whether routinely collected clinical measures could be repurposed to prioritize adults with chronic diseases for clinical frailty assessment. We conducted a prediction study using UK Biobank data. A stacked ensemble model was developed using 12 routinely and low cost measured clinical variables to predict frailty. Gain metrics were used to quantify the proportion of frailty cases identified when screening was restricted to individuals with the highest predicted risk of frailty. We compared health profiles (mortality, polypharmacy, self-rated health, falls) of frail and non-frail individuals across different levels of predicted risk. The robustness of this screening strategy was evaluated across 3,284 modelling settings. Among 281,729 participants (mean age 57.9; 54.7% women) with at least one chronic condition, 5.8% were frail. In the validation sample (N validation=93,910, N training=187,819), screening only the 20% of participants with the highest predicted risk of frailty identified 55.6% of all frailty cases, corresponding to a 2.78-fold improvement compared to random screening. Overall, the model recovered 53.4% of the maximum achievable improvement over random screening. Frailty remained always associated with poor outcomes. Screening performance remained consistent across alternative modelling settings. Routinely collected clinical measures can improve the efficiency of frailty screening among adults living with chronic diseases by prioritizing individuals based on their level of risk. Since these data are already gathered during routine care, this risk-prioritization strategy could support scalable screening without increasing testing burden or clinical workload.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Identifying clusters of people with Multiple Long-Term Conditions using Large Language Models: a population-based study 91%
- An aging focused unobtrusive and Privacy-Preserving Digital Behaviorome 91%
- Continuous-Time and Dynamic Suicide Attempt Risk Prediction with Neural Ordinary Differential Equations 89%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and validation of prediction models for predicting social care strengths and vulnerability in older people: Cohort study using routine data in Adult Social Care 93%
- Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on psychosocial factors, health, and lifestyle in Scottish octogenarians: the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936 Study 92%
- The impact of outdoor walking interventions on frailty among older adults with mobility limitations: findings from the Getting Older Adults Outdoors (GO-OUT) study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Frailty trajectories in the oldest old: Is the level or the rate of change more predictive of mortality? 93%
- COVID-19 risk factors amongst 14,786 care home residents: An observational longitudinal analysis including daily community positive test rates of COVID-19, hospital stays, and vaccination status in Wales (UK) between 1st September 2020 and 1st May 2021. 93%
- Home-based Extended Rehabilitation for Older People with Frailty (HERO): a Randomised Controlled Trial 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Predicting the need for escalation of care or death from repeated daily clinical observations and laboratory results in patients with SARS-CoV-2 during 2020: a retrospective population-based cohort study from the United Kingdom 89%
- The US Midlife Mortality Crisis Continues: Excess Cause-Specific Mortality During 2020 88%
- Obtaining prevalence estimates of COVID-19: A model to inform decision-making 88%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.