ArticleNephrology (Carlton, Vic.)2026
Comparison of Electronic Health Data-Based Frailty Assessment Tools for Prediction of Adverse Outcomes of Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease.
Article in Nephrology (Carlton, Vic.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare four electronic health record (EHR)-based frailty tools-the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS), Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups Frailty Indicator (CFI), Electronic Frailty Index (eFI) and a Laboratory-based Frailty Index (FI-Lab)-in predicting progression and all-cause mortality in hospitalised patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).
methodsThis retrospective study evaluated the indices in two cohorts: a single-centre cohort (n = 5715) for CKD progression and the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC) database (n = 2674) for mortality. We used Cox proportional hazards regression for association analyses. The incremental predictive value of adding frailty indices to established risk models was quantified using the area under the curve (AUC), net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI).
resultsCorrelations between the frailty indices were weak to moderate (Spearman's ρ = 0.205-0.451). In adjusted analyses, CFI, eFI and FI-Lab were associated with a higher risk of CKD progression, whereas HFRS was not. In the MIMIC cohort, all four indices were significantly associated with all-cause mortality. Notably, the CFI association was non-significant in patients < 65 years for both CKD progression and 28-day mortality. For predictive enhancement, adding FI-Lab and eFI to established CKD risk models significantly improved progression prediction (ΔAUC p < 0.05), yielding substantial reclassification (NRI: 0.376-0.498) and discrimination (IDI: 0.032-0.048). For mortality prediction, all indices improved baseline severity scores, with FI-Lab providing the greatest incremental value.
conclusionAmong the evaluated EHR-based frailty indices, FI-Lab offers the most robust utility for risk stratification in hospitalised patients with CKD, followed closely by eFI.
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.