Skip to content
Preprint · OA via OpenAlex

Claims-Based Frailty Index and Its Relationship With Commonly Used Clinical Frailty Measures

Stephanie Denise M. Sison, Sandra Shi, Gahee Oh, Sohyun Jeong, Ellen P. McCarthy, Dae Hyun Kim

The Journals of Gerontology Series A · 2024 · ▲ 34 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The relationship of claims-based frailty index (CFI), a validated measure to identify frail individuals using Medicare data, and frailty measures used in clinical practice has not yet been fully explored. METHODS: We identified community-dwelling participants of the 2015 National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) whose CFI scores could be calculated using linked Medicare claims. We calculated 9 commonly used clinical frailty measures from their NHATS in-person examination: Study of Osteoporotic Fracture Index (SOF), FRAIL Scale, Frailty Phenotype, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Vulnerable Elder Survey-13 (VES-13), Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS), and 40-item Frailty Index (FI). Using equipercentile method, CFI scores were linked to clinical frailty measures. C-statistics and test characteristics of CFI to identify frailty as defined by each clinical frailty measure were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 3 963 older adults, 44.5% were ≥75 years, 59.4% were female, and 82.3% were non-Hispanic White. A CFI of 0.25 was equipercentile to the following clinical frailty measure scores: SOF 1.4, FRAIL 1.8, Phenotype 1.8, CFS 5.4, VES-13 5.7, TFI 4.6, GFI 5.0, EFS 6.0, and FI 0.26. The C-statistics of using CFI to identify frailty as defined by each clinical measure were ≥0.70, except for CFS and VES-13. The optimal CFI cutpoints to identify frailty per clinical frailty measure ranged from 0.212 to 0.242, with sensitivity and specificity of 0.37-0.83 and 0.66-0.84, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the relationship of CFI and commonly used clinical frailty measures can enhance the interpretability and potential utility of CFI.

◌ CITATION ONLY
Full text is not openly licensed for redistribution here. Read it at the source:

Read at source →

Provenance

Source
OpenAlex
DOI
10.1093/gerona/glae094
Canonical
link ↗
Fetched
2026-10-14 MST

Cite this

APA
Sison, S.D.M., Shi, S., Oh, G., Jeong, S., McCarthy, E.P., &amp; Kim, D.H. (2024). Claims-Based Frailty Index and Its Relationship With Commonly Used Clinical Frailty Measures. <em>The Journals of Gerontology Series A</em>. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glae094
Vancouver
Sison SDM, Shi S, Oh G, Jeong S, McCarthy EP, Kim DH. Claims-Based Frailty Index and Its Relationship With Commonly Used Clinical Frailty Measures. The Journals of Gerontology Series A. 2024. doi:10.1093/gerona/glae094.
BibTeX
@unpublished{stephanie2024Claims, title = {Claims-Based Frailty Index and Its Relationship With Commonly Used Clinical Frailty Measures}, author = {Stephanie Denise M. Sison and Sandra Shi and Gahee Oh and Sohyun Jeong and Ellen P. McCarthy and Dae Hyun Kim}, journal = {The Journals of Gerontology Series A}, year = {2024}, doi = {10.1093/gerona/glae094}, }

Research neighborhood

References, citing works, and semantically nearest findings. Click a node to open it.

Related findings