↓ Skip to main content

Frailty, fitness and late-life mortality in relation to chronological and biological age

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, February 2002
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
394 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
247 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Frailty, fitness and late-life mortality in relation to chronological and biological age
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, February 2002
DOI 10.1186/1471-2318-2-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arnold B Mitnitski, Janice E Graham, Alexander J Mogilner, Kenneth Rockwood

Abstract

People age at remarkably different rates, but how to estimate trajectories of senescence is controversial. In a secondary analysis of a representative cohort of Canadians aged 65 and over (n = 2914) we estimated a frailty index based on the proportion of 20 deficits observed in a structured clinical examination. The construct validity of the index was examined through its relationship to chronological age (CA). The criterion validity was examined in its ability to predict mortality, and in relation to other predictions about aging. From the frailty index, relative (to CA) fitness and frailty were estimated, as was an individual's biological age. The average value of the frailty index increased with age in a log-linear relationship (r = 0.91; p < 0.001). In a Cox regression analysis, biological age was significantly more highly associated with death than chronological age. The average increase in the frailty index (i.e. the average accumulation of deficits) amongst those with no cognitive impairment was 3 per cent per year. The frailty index is a sensitive predictor of survival. As the index includes items not traditionally related to adverse health outcomes, the finding is compatible with a view of frailty as the failure to integrate the complex responses required to maintain function.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 247 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
Mexico 3 1%
United States 2 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 233 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 46 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 18%
Student > Master 32 13%
Student > Bachelor 28 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 7%
Other 54 22%
Unknown 24 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 106 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 7%
Social Sciences 17 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 4%
Other 52 21%
Unknown 32 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 October 2016.
All research outputs
#12,641,273
of 15,918,484 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#1,531
of 1,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,243
of 295,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#153
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,918,484 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,776 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 295,891 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.