ArticleClinical interventions in aging2026
Predictive Risk Models for Frailty Onset in Older Adults: A Scoping Review of Methodological Trends, Model Performance, and Clinical Translation Gap.
Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Identifying older adults at risk of frailty is crucial for early intervention. Although numerous prediction models have emerged, no scoping review has systematically mapped their methodological trends and barriers to clinical implementation. This scoping review aimed to examine methodological characteristics, model performance, and translational gaps in frailty onset prediction models for older adults. Methods: A systematic search of six Chinese and English databases was conducted from inception to February 2026following Arksey and O'Malley's framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Results: Thirty studies, reporting 31 frailty prediction models published between 2018 and 2026, were included. Six overarching trends emerged: Most studies originated from China (73.33%), and community-dwelling older adults were the predominant study population (73.33%). After 2024, longitudinal designs using larger public databases became more common; Machine learning was increasingly adopted (38.7%) but showed no clear advantage over logistic regression (median AUC 0.813 vs 0.860); Conventional predictors, including age, multimorbidity, and depression, remained dominant; Calibration was under-reported, particularly in machine learning models (50%); Clinical translation was limited, with external validation and Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis plus Artificial Intelligence (TRIPOD+AI) adherence each reported in only 22.6% of models, static presentation formats predominating (83.9%), and no studies evaluating health economic outcomes or prospective clinical impact. Conclusion: Frailty prediction models are constrained by insufficient calibration reporting, limited external validation, and substantial translation barriers. Future research should prioritize rigorous external validation, TRIPOD+AI adherence, and clinically integrated digital tools supported by implementation science.
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.