Contribution of frailty markers in explaining differences among individuals in five samples of older persons

Journals of Gerontology - Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences

Volumn 67, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 1197-1204

  Sourial, Nadia ^a   Bergman, Howard ^a,b   Karunananthan, Sathya ^c   Wolfson, Christina ^c,d   Guralnik, Jack ^e   Payette, Hélène ^f,g   Gutierrez Robledo, Luis ^h   Deeg, Dorly J H ⁱ   Fletcher, John D ^a   Puts, Maria T E ^j   Zhu, Bin ^d   Béland, François ^a,b  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^c MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF THE MCGILL UNIVERSITY HEALTH CENTRE   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITÉ DE SHERBROOKE   (Canada)

^g UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF GERIATRICS OF SHERBROOKE   (Canada)

^h INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE GERIATRÍA   (Mexico)

ⁱ VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^j UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

more..

Author keywords

Frailty; Multivariate analyses; Older adults

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

AGED; AGING; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DISABILITY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; FRAIL ELDERLY; GERIATRIC ASSESSMENT; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; METHODOLOGY; MUSCLE STRENGTH; NUTRITIONAL ASSESSMENT; PHYSIOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AGING; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; COHORT STUDIES; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; FRAIL ELDERLY; GERIATRIC ASSESSMENT; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; MUSCLE STRENGTH; NUTRITION ASSESSMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAMPLING STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84867532528     PISSN: 10795006     EISSN: 1758535X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/gerona/gls084     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Bergman H, Ferrucci L, Guralnik J, et al. Frailty: an emerging research and clinical paradigm - issues and controversies. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007; 62: 731-737.
2. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol Med Sci. 2001; 56: M146-M156.
3. Hogan DB, MacKnight C, Bergman H. Models, defi nitions, and criteria of frailty. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2003; 15: 1-29.
4. Gill TM, Gahbauer EA, Han L, Allore HG. The relationship between intervening hospitalizations and transitions between frailty states. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2011; 66: 1238-1243.
5. Ho YY, Matteini AM, Beamer B, et al. Exploring biologically relevant pathways in frailty. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2011; 66: 975-979.
6. Kalyani RR, Varadhan R, Weiss CO, et al. Frailty status and altered glucose-insulin dynamics. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. doi:10.1093/gerona/ GLR141
7. Hubbard RE, Lang IA, Llewellyn DJ, et al. Frailty, body mass index, and abdominal obesity in older people. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2011; 65: 377-381.
8. Bergman H. The Canadian initiative on frailty and aging. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2003; 15: 1-2.
9. Sourial N, Wolfson C, Bergman H, et al. A correspondence analysis revealed frailty defi cits aggregate and are multidimensional. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 647-654.
10. Cornoni-Huntley J, Ostfeld AM, Taylor JO, et al. Established populations for epidemiologic studies of the elderly: study design and methodology. Aging (Milano). 1993; 5: 27-37.
11. Deeg DJ, van Tilburg T, Smit JH, de Leeuw ED. Attrition in the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam. The effect of differential inclusion in side studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002; 55: 319-328.
12. Wong R, Espinoza M, Palloni A. [Mexican older adults with a wide socioeconomic perspective: health and aging]. Salud Publica Mex. 2007; 49 (suppl 4): S436-S447.
13. Gaudreau P, Morais JA, Shatenstein B, et al. Nutrition as a determinant of successful aging: description of the Quebec longitudinal study Nuage and results from cross-sectional pilot studies. Rejuvenation Res. 2007; 10: 377-386.
14. Katz S. Assessing self-maintenance: activities of daily living, mobility, and instrumental activities of daily living. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1983; 31: 721-727.
15. Feil D, Marmon T, Unutzer J. Cognitive impairment, chronic medical illness, and risk of mortality in an elderly cohort. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2003; 11: 551-560.
16. Kohout FJ, Berkman LF, Evans DA, Cornoni-Huntley J. Two shorter forms of the CES-D (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression) depression symptoms index. J Aging Health. 1993; 5: 179-193.
17. Stel VS, Smit JH, Pluijm SM, Visser M, Deeg DJ, Lips P. Comparison of the LASA Physical Activity Questionnaire with a 7-day diary and pedometer. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004; 57: 252-258.
18. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. "Mini-mental state." A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975; 12: 189-198.
19. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale. Appl Psychol Meas. 1977; 1: 385-401.
20. Glosser G, Wolfe N, Albert ML, et al. Cross-cultural cognitive examination: validation of a dementia screening instrument for neuroepidemiological research. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1993; 41: 931-939.
21. Washburn RA, Smith KW, Jette AM, Janney CA. The Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE): development and evaluation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993; 46: 153-162.
22. Chad KE, Reeder BA, Harrison EL, et al. Profi le of physical activity levels in community-dwelling older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005; 37: 1774-1784.
23. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992; 30: 473-483.
24. Hopman WM, Towheed T, Anastassiades T, et al. Canadian normative data for the SF-36 health survey. Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study Research Group. Can Med Assoc J. 2000; 163: 265-271.
25. Studenski S, Perera S, Wallace D, et al. Physical performance measures in the clinical setting. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003; 51: 314-322.
26. Desrosiers J, Bravo G, Hebert R, Dutil E. Normative data for grip strength of elderly men and women. Am J Occup Ther. 1995; 49: 637-644.
27. Yesavage JA, Brink TL, Rose TL, et al. Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. J Psychiatr Res. 1983; 17: 37-49.
28. Sourial N, Wolfson C, Zhu B, et al. Correspondence analysis is a useful tool to uncover the relationships among categorical variables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 638-646.
29. Greenacre MJ. Correspondence Analysis in Practice. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall \ CRC; 2007.
30. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2010.
31. Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1987.
32. Raghunathan TE, Lepkowski JM, van Hoewyk J, Solenberger P. A multivariate technique for multiply imputing missing values using a sequence of regression models. Surv Methodol. 2001; 27: 85-95.
33. Bandeen-Roche K, Xue QL, Ferrucci L, et al. Phenotype of frailty: characterization in the women's health and aging studies. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2006; 61: 262-266.
34. Sarkisian CA, Gruenewald TL, John Boscardin W, Seeman TE. Preliminary evidence for subdimensions of geriatric frailty: the MacArthur study of successful aging. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008; 56: 2292-2297.
35. Verbrugge LM. Flies without wings. In: Carey J, Robine JM, Michel JP, Christen Y, eds. Longevity and Frailty. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Verlag; 2005: 67-81.
36. Aguilar-Salinas CA, Gomez-Perez FJ, Rull J, Villalpando S, Barquera S, Rojas R. Prevalence of dyslipidemias in the Mexican National Health and Nutrition Survey 2006. Salud Publica Mex. 2010; 52 (suppl 1): S44-S53.