↓ Skip to main content

The Effects of Combinations of Cognitive Impairment and Pre-frailty on Adverse Outcomes from a Prospective Community-Based Cohort Study of Older Chinese People

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
The Effects of Combinations of Cognitive Impairment and Pre-frailty on Adverse Outcomes from a Prospective Community-Based Cohort Study of Older Chinese People
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2018.00050
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruby Yu, John E. Morley, Timothy Kwok, Jason Leung, Osbert Cheung, Jean Woo

Abstract

To examine how various combinations of cognitive impairment (overall performance and specific domains) and pre-frailty predict risks of adverse outcomes; and to determine whether cognitive frailty may be defined as the combination of cognitive impairment and the presence of pre-frailty. Community-based cohort study. Chinese men and women (n = 3,491) aged 65+ without dementia, Parkinson's disease and/or frailty at baseline. Frailty was characterized using the Cardiovascular Health Study criteria. Overall cognitive impairment was defined by a Cantonese Mini-Mental Status Examination (CMMSE) total score (<21/24/27, depending on participants' educational levels); delayed recall impairment by a CMMSE delayed recall score (<3); and language and praxis impairment by a CMMSE language and praxis score (<9). Adverse outcomes included poor quality of life, physical limitation, increased cumulative hospital stay, and mortality. Compared to those who were robust and cognitively intact at baseline, those who were robust but cognitively impaired were more likely to develop pre-frailty/frailty after 4 years (P < 0.01). Compared to participants who were robust and cognitively intact at baseline, those who were pre-frail and with overall cognitive impairment had lower grip strength (P < 0.05), lower gait speed (P < 0.01), poorer lower limb strength (P < 0.01), and poorer delayed recall at year 4 [OR, 1.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2-2.3]. They were also associated with increased risks of poor quality of life (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2) and incident physical limitation at year 4 (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.5), increased cumulative hospital stay at year 7 (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1), and mortality over an average of 12 years (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.1) after adjustment for covariates. There was no significant difference in risks of adverse outcomes between participants who were pre-frail, with/without cognitive impairment at baseline. Similar results were obtained with delayed recall and language and praxis impairments. Robust and cognitively impaired participants had higher risks of becoming pre-frail/frail over 4 years compared with those with normal cognition. Cognitive impairment characterized by the CMMSE overall score or its individual domain score improved the predictive power of pre-frailty for poor quality of life, incident physical limitation, increased cumulative hospital stay, and mortality. Our findings support to the concept that cognitive frailty may be defined as the occurrence of both cognitive impairment and pre-frailty, not necessarily progressing to dementia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 19%
Student > Bachelor 11 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 15%
Neuroscience 5 7%
Sports and Recreations 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 25 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 April 2019.
All research outputs
#14,377,572
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#2,473
of 5,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,783
of 331,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#66
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,797 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
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 331,974 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.