ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2025
Combinations of intrinsic capacity and frailty and their associations with self-rated health in community-dwelling older adults.
Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intrinsic capacity and the physical frailty phenotype as complementary predictors of mortality in older Indian adults.Research square · 2026Article
- Association Between Sarcopenia Defined by the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2025 Criteria and Cognitive Function in Middle-Aged Community-Dwelling Adults.Geriatrics & gerontology international · 2026Article
- Latent profile analysis and analytical model construction based on heterogeneity of intrinsic capacity in Chinese older adults.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntrinsic capacity (IC) and frailty are distinct but complementary frameworks for understanding the heterogeneity of aging. Although both have been linked to self-rated health, little is known about how their combined status relates to older adults’ health perceptions. This cross-sectional study investigated how combinations of IC and frailty status were associated with self-rated health among community-dwelling older adults.
methodData from 593 participants (mean age: 73.9 years, female: 62.2%) in the 2019 Tarumizu Study were analyzed. IC was evaluated across five key screening domains (cognition, vitality, sensory, locomotion, and psychological) using a 10-point scale, with scores ≥ 9 classified as high IC. Frailty was assessed using the Japanese version of the Cardiovascular Health Study criteria and dichotomized into robustness and frailty (pre-frailty or frailty). Self-rated health was assessed with a four-point item and dichotomized into good or poor. Participants were classified into four groups: robust with high IC, frailty with high IC, robust with low IC, and frailty with low-IC.
resultsGroup proportions were: 30.0% (robust with high IC), 23.1% (frailty with high IC), 15.9% (robust with low IC), and 31.0% (frailty with low IC). Multivariable logistic regression showed that only the frailty with low-IC group had significantly greater odds of poor self-rated health compared to the robust with high-IC group (OR = 3.55, 95% CI: 1.34–9.36).
conclusionsCo-occurrence of low IC and frailty was significantly associated with poor self-rated health. These findings suggest that considering IC and frailty may enhance understanding of self-rated health in later life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.