ライフサイエンスコーパス: frail

1 lty Score (CFS): 1 (very fit) to 7 (severely frail).

2 +/- 4.5%, and 33.9% of patients were deemed frail.

3 rval [CI], 1.21-4.07) were more likely to be frail.

4 identification of particular individuals as frail.

5 -nine of 120 patients (33%) were assessed as frail.

6 e elderly population (those >/=65 years) are frail.

7 ence, and disability compared with those not frail.

8 95) were frail, and 5.9% (n = 295) were most frail.

9 with scores of 3 or higher characterized as frail.

10 alyses are scarce and often methodologically frail.

11 h treated HIV infection may be identified as frail.

12 Overall, 30% of participants were frail.

13 exploring how people over time manage being frail.

14 in capacity and quality of life whilst being frail.

15 Twenty-four of 100 (24%) were assessed as frail.

16 eneous health status--ranging from robust to frail.

17 ally frail and those who were not physically frail.

18 e frail; among the least resilient, 29% were frail.

19 baseline, 7.5% (n = 86) of participants were frail.

20 Of 72,824 patients, 11,685 (16%) were frail.

21 rategies to support younger patients who are frail.

22 % became more frail, while 24.4% became less frail.

23 of at least 4.5 indicated that patients were frail.

24 llowed for a median of 1.5 years, 15.0% were frail.

25 le and categorized as robust, pre-frail, and frail.

26 2-5.39) was associated with remaining stably frail.

27 s, 36% had ascites, 41% had HE, and 25% were frail.

28 r adults undergoing emergency laparotomy are frail.

29 ty Scale (range, 1 [very fit] to 7 [severely frail]).

30 ts had IADL impairment (52%) compared to non-frail (11%) persons, agreement was poor (weighted kappa

31 245 patients, 55 (22.4%) were classified as frail, 113 (46.1%) as pre-frail, and 77 (31.4%) as robus

32 waitlist compared with patients who were not frail (17% of patients with ascites and 20% with HE).

33 atients classified as moderately to severely frail (2.5%).

34 ess for standard therapy (ie, fit, unfit, or frail); (2) leukemia resistance (high vs low probability

35 Older candidates were more likely to be frail (33.3% vs 21.7%, P = 0.002).

36 efore ICU admission, 13% of all patients was frail, 65% suffered from fatigue, 28% and 26% from sympt

37 eveloped multimorbidity, 1733 (27.0%) became frail, 692 (10.8%) had a disability, and 611 (9.5%) died

38 Elderly people may be categorized as fit or frail according to clinical, functional, cognitive, and

39 an males, with life expectancy for the least frail adult females reaching up to 4.23 years, while for

40 aching up to 4.23 years, while for the least frail adult males it was of 2.68 years.

41 Functional platelet studies in aged-frail adults and old mice demonstrated that their platel

42 lead to evidence-based care for older and/or frail adults with cancer.

43 decreased mortality in older, predominantly frail adults, but no difference in rehospitalization.

44 therapeutic clinical trials for older and/or frail adults.

45 Between 2010 and 2013, 98 patients (frail = age >/= 50 years and Karnofsky performance statu

46 ance status [KPS] of 50% to 70%; elderly and frail = age >/= 65 years and KPS of 50% to 70%; elderly

47 vulnerable or frail and fit or vulnerable v frail), agreement among the four classifications ranged

48 Whereas robust and frail alike must allocate investments between current an

49 Among the most resilient, only 10% were frail; among the least resilient, 29% were frail.

50 Within 1 year, 13.6% (n = 855) of frail and 4.8% (n = 9433) of nonfrail patients died.

51 ce Battery score <=10), and 6% (4%, 9%) were frail and 42% prefrail.

52 Unplanned patients were significantly more frail and depressed.

53 ding reduced starting doses of chemotherapy, frail and elderly patients can participate in a randomis

54 rail) or two categories (fit v vulnerable or frail and fit or vulnerable v frail), agreement among th

55 h more comorbidities, consume more drugs, be frail and have a higher rate of survival at the follow-u

56 75 years of age or older who were physically frail and living at home to undergo a six-month, home-ba

57 many people in late old age find themselves frail and living at home, often alone.

58 n showed higher survival rates than did both frail and no frail men.

59 enols and six carnitines) that differentiate frail and non-frail phenotypes.

60 endence were common, with a majority of both frail and nonfrail participants experiencing at least on

61 On average, both frail and nonfrail recipients experience short-term cogn

62 In a nested case-control study of frail and nonfrail subjects, we measured serum IL-6, tum

63 nd that the most parous adults were the most frail and that the parity-frailty relationship was simil

64 on of women's bodies; (2) women are weak and frail and therefore prone to injury; and (3) mispercepti

65 bserved for participants who were physically frail and those who were not physically frail.

66 x medical care, and end-of-life care of this frail and vulnerable population.

67 le used, 20-46% of patients were found to be frail, and 5-76% were found to have at least 1 disabilit

68 = 1971) were prefrail, 39.8% (n = 1995) were frail, and 5.9% (n = 295) were most frail.

69 were classified as frail, 113 (46.1%) as pre-frail, and 77 (31.4%) as robust.

70 the majority of patients are neither fit nor frail, and current evidence is insufficient to either qu

71 Frailty Scale and categorized as robust, pre-frail, and frail.

72 gorized as robust, prefrail-robust, prefrail-frail, and frail; CD-RISC was categorized using populati

73 5, and $16 449 in costs for prefrail, mildly frail, and moderately to severely frail patients, respec

74 term statin users tend to be healthier, less frail, and more adherent to therapy than nonusers, howev

75 l: 1.1, 2.4; p < 0.05) more likely to become frail, and those who never left their homes experienced

76 who had spent the prior 7 years prefrail or frail as compared with 4.7 mL (95% confidence interval:

77 ty at 3- or 12-month follow-up, 61% were not frail at baseline.

78 ng women aged 65 years or older who were not frail at baseline.

79 95 women (median age 51 years), 62 (6%) were frail at baseline.

80 Candidates who became more frail between 3-category states (hazard ratio, 2.27; 95%

81 iologically younger than their age) to being frail (biologically older than their age).

82 home, being aged 85 or older and regarded as frail by a clinical multi-disciplinary intermediate care

83 and 262 completed SPPB assessments; 28% were frail by FFP (95% confidence interval [CI], 24-33%) and

84 iver Disease (MELD) MELD of 12.10 (25%) were frail by Fried Frailty Index >/=3.

85 Frail CCS were more likely than nonfrail survivors to ha

86 robust, prefrail-robust, prefrail-frail, and frail; CD-RISC was categorized using population norms as

87 3 +/- 5 vs. 84 +/- 5; p < 0.001), less often frail (CFS > 4; 38% versus 49%; p < 0.001) but evidenced

88 Of these, 507 (33.6%) were categorized as "frail" (Clinical Frailty Scale >= 5).

89 and vitamin E pathways were dysregulated in frail compared with non-frail participants.

90 -visual analogue scale scores were lower for frail compared with not frail patients at 6 months (52.2

91 nd death, and other demographic differences, frail decedents were more than 8 times more likely than

92 1.49-2.70] vs 3.66 [2.94-4.38], P<.001); and frail decedents were relatively more disabled in the fin

93 idence base for person-centred approaches to frail elder care.

94 levels were elevated in skeletal muscle from frail elderly (81+/-1 year) as compared to healthy young

95 tance exercise affects TNF-alpha expression, frail elderly men and women were randomly assigned to a

96 This industry does not target the frail elderly or inner-city ethnic minorities, groups fo

97 In community-dwelling frail elderly patients with hip fracture, 6 months of ex

98 therapies that can be tolerated by the more frail elderly patients with this disease are urgently ne

99 t is the optimal treatment approach for more frail elderly patients?

100 ould be the basis for a shift in the care of frail elderly people towards more appropriate goal-direc

101 Frail elderly people with hMPV infection frequently soug

102 this risk is heavily influenced by deaths in frail elderly people.

103 nly 4% of the Medicare population, high-cost frail elderly persons accounted for 43.9% of total poten

104 Frail elderly persons accounted for most spending relate

105 Aspiration pneumonia is common among frail elderly persons with dysphagia.

106 ations, with the majority concentrated among frail elderly persons.

107 the use of large catheters in a very old and frail elderly population), whereas the pathophysiology o

108 eumonia was much lower than expected in this frail elderly population.

109 Compared with young subjects, frail elderly subjects also exhibited a blunted and some

110 fficacy and toxicity of new drugs in fit and frail elderly subpopulations.

111 We show that prefrail/frail elderly women exhibited marked features of muscle

112 In physically frail elderly women, 9 months of HRT significantly incre

113 about the osteoprotective effects of HRT in frail elderly women.

114 claims-based algorithm: nonelderly disabled, frail elderly, major complex chronic, minor complex chro

115 mortality have been reported in the affected frail elderly.

116 f physical and cognitive functioning as more frail, elderly individuals survive with health problems,

117 S-CoV-2) infection disproportionally affects frail, elderly patients and those with multiple chronic

118 Functional decline in physically frail, elderly persons is associated with substantial mo

119 ssion of functional decline among physically frail, elderly persons who live at home.

120 ) inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) in 205 frail, elderly residents of LTCFs during the 2011-2012 a

121 Among frail, elderly residents of LTCFs, HD influenza vaccine

122 nterventions designed to improve outcomes in frail elders with CVD such as multidisciplinary cardiac

123 e benefits for patients who are very old and frail, especially those taking numerous medications, are

124 ) The current state of the art: preoperative frail evaluation.

125 gical treatment, or for patients who are too frail for drug treatments.

126 he presence and extent of denervation in pre-frail/frail elderly (FE, 77.9 +/- 6.2 years) women compa

127 l group compared with only 54 +/- 9% for the frail group (P < 0.005).

128 frail group compared with 58 +/- 10% for the frail group (P = 0.002).

129 al frailty index; participants classified as frail (>=3 criteria) and prefrail (1 or 2 criteria).

130 rd rate = 1.55 95% CI: 1.30-1.86; P < 0.001; frail hazard rate = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.79-1.19, P = 0.80; P

131 Frail HCT survivors are at increased risk of subsequent

132 risk for low bone mineral density (BMD) and frail health, outcomes potentially modifiable by alterin

133 ced for medical conditions and indicators of frail health.

134 e-fitness (HR, 1.23; P = .217), and 34.0% in frail (HR, 1.74; P < .001) patients.

135 e-fitness (HR, 1.41; P = .052), and 31.2% in frail (HR, 2.21; P < .001) patients.

136 zard ratio [HR], 1.61; P = .042), and 57% in frail (HR, 3.57; P < .001) patients.

137 1.85-5.88), and being both HIV-infected and frail (HR, 7.06; 95%CI 3.49-14.3).

138 Compared with non-frail participants, pre-frail (HR: 1.51 95%CI [1.12-2.02]) and frail participant

139 Participants were classified as frail if they had >=3 of the following criteria: slow wa

140 nonresponse bias due to a high proportion of frail, ill, and cognitively impaired persons, strategies

141 atients who received an immunomodulator were frail in the 2 years before immunosuppression.

142 er time of home-dwelling older people deemed frail, in order to enhance the evidence base for person-

143 ity within 1 month after hospitalization for frail individuals was 34.9% (95% CI, 34.5%-35.3%) vs 4.9

144 ATIV is preferentially recommended for more frail individuals, subjects vaccinated with ATIV were ol

145 ght be a useful tool for identifying fit and frail individuals.

146 nce in the timing of death by a few days for frail individuals.

147 rail/nonfrail), (2) 3-category state change (frail/intermediate/nonfrail), and (3) raw score change (

148 sons, particularly those who were physically frail, intervening illnesses and injuries greatly increa

149 Investigation of the experience of being frail is a complementary and necessary addition to inter

150 Frail kidney transplant (KT) recipients have higher risk

151 Frail KT recipients are more likely to experience a long

152 Identifying frail KT recipients for targeted outpatient monitoring a

153 Frail KT recipients were much more likely to experience

154 lished research on assessment of elderly and frail lung transplant candidates.

155 n subjected to environmental stressors abort frail male fetuses implies that climate change may affec

156 In-line with 'frail male' predictions, we find that boys are less like

157 works used to study patterning in SRB - (1) 'frail males' and (2) adaptive sex-biased investment theo

158 Of 202 811 patients, 6289 (3.1%) were frail (mean [SD] age, 77 [7] years).

159 at it systematically underpredicts costs for frail Medicare beneficiaries.

160 HIV-infected frail men (n = 155) were matched to nonfrail, HIV-infect

161 er survival rates than did both frail and no frail men.

162 gorized as follows: (1) binary state change (frail/nonfrail), (2) 3-category state change (frail/inte

163 A cohort of 190 frail nursing home residents aged 80-102 years and a coh

164 e threatens the overall care of increasingly frail nursing home residents who have medically complex

165 iscontinuing inappropriate medication use in frail nursing home residents without a decline in their

166 vaccine (hereafter, "varicella vaccine") in frail nursing homes residents nor about immune phenotype

167 One hundred seven frail, obese older adults were randomly assigned to a co

168 roup (19% of the asymptomatic patients) with frail ocular surfaces who showed a significantly higher

169 g population, preoperative assessment of the frail older adult requires evaluation beyond simply acco

170 nition is a recognized characteristic of the frail older adult.

171 practice, common problems and symptoms that frail older adults experience, and approaches to these i

172 reducing confounding by frailty by excluding frail older adults who would not initiate use of these d

173 d in personalizing therapy for vulnerable or frail older adults.

174 ate palliative care and hospice referral for frail older adults.

175 ciated with serious respiratory illnesses in frail older adults.

176 However, observational studies in frail older individuals treated for hypertension have sh

177 vel to pay for the time required to care for frail older patients and to teach and do research about

178 Conversely, frail older patients are more likely to suffer adverse o

179 n may be used to predict hydration status in frail older people (as a first-stage screening) or to es

180 ive integrative model of supportive care for frail older people is developed from the findings.

181 Data on the experience of 15 frail older people were collected by visiting them up to

182 These data suggest that, among frail older people, even modest levels of physical activ

183 For frail older people, the presence of others to engage wit

184 y, but nonetheless remarkable, experience of frail older people.

185 dated spectacles could increase fall rate in frail older people.

186 controlled trials are necessary for the most frail older subjects (ie, in those systematically exclud

187 tion medications are often not prescribed to frail, older adults following acute myocardial infarctio

188 iabetes clinical trial data were lacking for frail, older patients.

189 riori because real-life patients can be more frail or present with 1 or more comorbidities.

190 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1, 2.3) and frail (OR = 2.5; 95% CI = 1.4, 4.3).

191 e prefrail (OR = 2.9; 95% CI = 1.8, 4.7) and frail (OR = 4.3; 95% CI = 2.2, 8.3).

192 assification into three (fit, vulnerable, or frail) or two categories (fit v vulnerable or frail and

193 ns who were cognitively impaired, physically frail, or severely disabled (ie, in 3-4 ADLs) at onset w

194 l (prefrail: OR = 4.0; 95% CI = 2.2, 7.2 and frail: OR = 4.5; 95% CI = 1.7,12.7).

195 Prevention of falls among frail, osteoporotic persons would likely reduce the freq

196 Fat area was significantly higher in frail participants (22.0%, SE = 0.9) than in participant

197 ) and muscle area (71.2%, SE = 0.4) than did frail participants (69.8 mg/cm(3), SE = 0.4; and 68.7%,

198 , pre-frail (HR: 1.51 95%CI [1.12-2.02]) and frail participants (HR: 1.73 95%CI [1.22-2.43]) had a hi

199 8 and 0.19; 0.40 and 0.20, respectively, for frail participants and 0.61 and 0.16, respectively, for

200 Although a greater proportion of frail participants had IADL impairment (52%) compared to

201 ipment and protocols not easily tolerated by frail participants or those with reduced mental capacity

202 Compared with non-frail participants, pre-frail (HR: 1.51 95%CI [1.12-2.02

203 were dysregulated in frail compared with non-frail participants.

204 ortality rate was significantly higher among frail participants: 25.7/1000 person-years of follow-up

205 ence between a 70-year-old fit patient and a frail patient above the age of 80.

206 (2) How do we identify the frail patient prior to the operating room?

207 cases and a standardized case vignette of a frail patient with acute mesenteric ischemia.

208 (5) Intraoperative management of the frail patient: does anesthesia play a role?

209 (6) Postoperative care of the frail patient: is rescue the issue?

210 Improvement was greatest among frail patients (12.2% [24 of 197 patients] to 3.8% [16 o

211 atients (41.6%), $26 239 for the 2215 mildly frail patients (9.6%), and $44 586 for the 593 patients

212 ed an increased relative hazard for death in frail patients (hazard ratio, 35.58; 95% CI, 29.78-40.19

213 Analysis Index (RAI), and the records of all frail patients (RAI score, >/=21) were flagged for admin

214 We conducted a randomized trial involving frail patients 65 years of age or older who were hospita

215 For severely frail patients aged 55-64 years, the NNT was 247 (156-45

216 ian 5 +/- 2 years of follow-up, 2921 (25.0%) frail patients and 8637 (14.1%) non-frail patients had d

217 reatment, thus avoiding the overtreatment of frail patients and the undertreatment of fit patients.

218 Surgically unresectable VHL-HBs or those in frail patients are challenging problems.

219 Frail patients are known to have poor perioperative outc

220 cores were lower for frail compared with not frail patients at 6 months (52.2 +/- 22.5 vs 64.6 +/- 19

221 nitive scores were significantly lower among frail patients compared with nonfrail patients (89.0 ver

222 Frail patients described lower health-related quality of

223 Higher proportions of frail patients developed infections after treatment (19%

224 ariations in the increased risk for death in frail patients existed between different surgery types a

225 ilty, 53% reported being less likely to list frail patients for KT.

226 Frail patients had an increased risk of infection after

227 (25.0%) frail patients and 8637 (14.1%) non-frail patients had died [adjusted hazard ratio 1.60; 95%

228 Frail patients had increased ICU resource utilization an

229 nd their role in the first-line treatment of frail patients or those who relapse after previous treat

230 Among frail patients or those with multiple comorbidities, ove

231 Frail patients reported greater problems with mobility (

232 Especially elderly frail patients seem to benefit because of reduced cardio

233 Although surgeons agreed that very frail patients should not have surgery, they held confli

234 Frail patients were older and had more comorbidities.

235 Frail patients were older, had more comorbidities, and h

236 and aneurysm-related mortality in physically frail patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rand

237 d to seek objective predictors of outcome in frail patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

238 Larger proportions of frail patients with ascites (29%) or HE (30%) died while

239 Elderly and frail patients with cancer, although often treated with

240 Frail patients with cirrhosis had poorer performance in

241 imal radiotherapy regimen for elderly and/or frail patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma remains

242 ded as a treatment option for elderly and/or frail patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

243 rd treatment after medical intervention; and frail patients with non-reversible impairment who should

244 Identification of frail patients with the slowest gait speeds facilitates

245 rable patients, and best supportive care for frail patients).

246 deintensified in 18.3% of patients (21.2% of frail patients, 19.4% of those with multiple comorbiditi

247 il, mildly frail, and moderately to severely frail patients, respectively, beyond the CMS-HCC model a

248 oposed to preoperatively identify and assess frail patients, though they differ in their clinical uti

249 cluded in trials to better assess fit versus frail patients.

250 d claim-based algorithm was used to identify frail patients.

251 2.8 [1.5-5.3]; p = 0.001) compared with not frail patients.

252 s; and (4) hypertension may be beneficial in frail people older than 85 years.

253 w resilience is strongly associated with the frail phenotype in patients with cirrhosis.

254 quickly from difficulties-contributes to the frail phenotype in patients with cirrhosis.

255 carnitines) that differentiate frail and non-frail phenotypes.

256 g the benefits of hypertension treatment for frail polymedicated octogenarians, for whom treatment sh

257 In this frail population, alternative strategies to manage psych

258 is necessary to optimize management of this frail population.

259 as 35 +/- 11 points, indicating a physically frail population.

260 d because of the healthy-user effect and, in frail populations, because of confounding by functional

261 adults with multiple morbidities and who are frail pose specific challenges for the management of hea

262 NVI+SNVI were more likely to be prefrail and frail (prefrail: OR = 4.0; 95% CI = 2.2, 7.2 and frail:

263 ), whereas cognitive function declined among frail recipients (slope =-0.04 points per week).

264 By 2 years after transplantation, 54% of frail recipients and 45% of nonfrail recipients experien

265 , cognitive scores were 5.8 points lower for frail recipients compared with nonfrail recipients.

266 rventions to prevent cognitive decline among frail recipients should be identified.

267 Frail recipients were 1.29 times (95% confidence interva

268 It is unclear whether frail recipients, with higher susceptibility to surgical

269 ing >=3 of the following 5 criteria from the FRAIL scale: fatigue, poor strength, low aerobic capacit

270 least 3 of the following 5 criteria from the FRAIL scale: fatigue, poor strength, reduced aerobic cap

271 ing >=3 of the following 5 criteria from the FRAIL scale: fatigue, reduced resistance, reduced aerobi

272 , intermediate fitness (score = 1, 31%), and frail (score >/=2, 30%).

273 ant, cognitive performance improved for both frail (slope =0.22 points per week) and nonfrail (slope

274 sociation functional class III/IV in 82.5%), frail (slow 5-m walk test in 81.6%), and have poor self-

275 increased the proportion of time spent in a frail state.

276 Frail subjects tended to have higher plasma IL-6 and tum

277 ltimore group had 28 subjects with falls, 32 frail subjects, and 5 deaths.

278 Frail subjects, identified by an easy and inexpensive fr

279 he evaluation of the CV risk in very elderly frail subjects.

280 key points regarding care for the geriatric frail surgical patient.

281 Frail survivors of critical illness experienced greater

282 More cumulative events occurred for frail than for robust patients for each adverse outcome.

283 on, better cognitive function, and were less frail than the standard discharge group (>48 hours).

284 T survivors were 8.4 times more likely to be frail than their siblings (95% CI, 2.0-34.5; P = .003).

285 and SNVI were more likely to be prefrail and frail than those without respective NVI, suggesting that

286 e specific (0.97), classifying only 3.7% as "frail." The RAI-C and RAI-A represent effective tools fo

287 ompared with participants who did not become frail, those with 1 modified Fried criterion (p = 0.03)

288 hospitalization in older adults who were not frail, though VE diminished as frailty increased.

289 ck of follow-up measurements on subjects too frail to return.

290 nterval [CI], 1.07-3.67) was associated with frail-to-nonfrail transition, and diabetes (relative ris

291 al therapy was low (14%), but in prefrail or frail (v robust) women the odds of noninitiation were 1.

292 ted 35-item scale and grouped as prefrail or frail versus robust.

293 F and 7% after immunomodulators; P < .01 for frail vs fit in both groups).

294 Disease codes to identify patients who were frail vs fit in the 2 years before initiation of an anti

295 Persons who were physically frail were oversampled.

296 Between evaluation and KT, 22.0% became more frail, while 24.4% became less frail.

297 of at least 21 classified 18.3% patients as "frail" with a sensitivity of 0.50 and specificity of 0.8

298 djusted point estimates of HRs (95% CIs) for frail women scoring in the second, third, and fourth qua

299 Importantly, frail women showed higher survival rates than did both f

300 lights the importance of nutrition in older, frail women.