Higher frailty levels are associated with lower cognitive
test scores in a multi-country study: evidence from the
study on global ageing and adult health.

Rosa Estela García-Chanes, Jose Alberto Avila-Funes, Miguel Germán Bordai, Mario Ulises Pérez-Zepeda, Luis Miguel Gutiérrez-Robledo

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

To cite this version:

Rosa Estela García-Chanes, Jose Alberto Avila-Funes, Miguel Germán Bordai, Mario Ulises Pérez-Zepeda, Luis Miguel Gutiérrez-Robledo. Higher frailty levels are associated with lower cognitive test scores in a multi-country study: evidence from the study on global ageing and adult health.. Frontiers in Medicine, 2023, 10, pp.1166365. 10.3389/fmed.2023.1166365 . hal-04220061

HAL Id: hal-04220061

https://hal.science/hal-04220061v1

Submitted on 27 Sep 2023

**HAL** is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

OPEN ACCESS

EDITED BY
Kenneth L. Seldeen,
University at Buffalo, United States

REVIEWED BY
Roberta Zupo,
University of Bari Aldo Moro, Italy
Carlo Custodero,
University of Bari Medical School, Italy

*CORRESPONDENCE
Mario Ulises Pérez-Zepeda
mperez@inger.gob.mx

RECEIVED 16 February 2023

ACCEPTED 02 May 2023

PUBLISHED 01 June 2023

**CITATION**
García-Chanes RE, Avila-Funes JA, Borda MG, Pérez-Zepeda MU and Gutiérrez-Robledo LM (2023) Higher frailty levels are associated with lower cognitive test scores in a multi-country study: evidence from the study on global ageing and adult health.
*Front. Med.* 10:1166365.
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1166365

**COPYRIGHT**
© 2023 García-Chanes, Avila-Funes, Borda, Pérez-Zepeda and Gutiérrez-Robledo. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

# Higher frailty levels are associated with lower cognitive test scores in a multi-country study: evidence from the study on global ageing and adult health

Rosa Estela García-Chanes¹, José Alberto Avila-Funes²,³, Miguel Germán Borda⁴, Mario Ulises Pérez-Zepeda¹,⁵* and Luis Miguel Gutiérrez-Robledo¹,²

¹Dirección de Investigación, Instituto Nacional de Geriatría, Mexico City, Mexico, ²Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico, ³Bordeaux Population Health Research Center, INSERM-University of Bordeaux, UMR 1219, Bordeaux, France, ⁴Centre for Age-Related Medicine (SESAM), Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway, ⁵Centro de Investigación en Ciencias de la Salud (CICSA), Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Anáhuac México Campus Norte, Huixquilucan de Degollado, Mexico

**Background:** Frailty has been recognized as a growing issue in older adults, with recent evidence showing that this condition heralds several health-related problems, including cognitive decline. The objective of this work is to determine if frailty is associated with cognitive decline among older adults from different countries.

**Methods:** We analyzed the baseline the Study on Global Ageing and Adult Health (SAGE), that includes six countries (Ghana, South Africa, Mexico, China, Russia, and India). A cross-section analysis was used to assess how Frailty was related with the Clinical Frailty Scale decision tree, while cognitive decline was evaluated using standardized scores of tests used in SAGE.

**Results:** A total of 30,674 participants aged 50years or older were included. There was an association between frailty levels and cognitive performance. For example, women had an inverse relationship between frailty levels and cognitive scores, even when comparing robust category with frailty level 2 (RRR=0.85; *p*=0.41), although the relative risks decrease significantly at level 3 (RRR=0.66; *p*=0.03). When controlling for age, the relative risks between frailty levels 4 to 7 significantly decreased as cognitive performance increased (RRR=0.46, RRR=0.52, RRR=0.44, RRR=0.32; *p*<0.001).

**Conclusion:** Our results show an association between frailty levels measured in a novel way, and cognitive decline across different cultural settings.

**KEYWORDS**

frailty, geriatric epidemiology, cognitive impairment, SAGE, multi-country study
# Introduction

Frailty is a common condition that mainly affects older adults and is characterized by the loss of an adequate response to common stressors that leads the individual to a worse health status (1). In fact, global aging has resulted in an increased frequency of conditions such as frailty, increasing the interest from health professionals and researchers in the field of aging and geriatric care (2). Evidence shows that assessing older adults leads to targeted interventions, improving health and especially when focusing this assessment on frailty (3). On the other hand, evidence shows that frailty is closely related to different conditions common to old age (4) and in particular the so-called ‘geriatric syndromes’ (5, 6).

In particular, frailty has been related to deteriorating mental health conditions, such as depression (7), anxiety (8), and cognitive impairment (9). In fact, evidence has grown in recent years, supporting the idea that mental and physical health converge at some point in time, leading to worse health-related outcomes (10, 11), whenever this happens. For example, Avila-Funes et al. showed that frailty is a better predictor of mortality whenever cognitive impairment is considered (12). As previously mentioned, understanding the underpinnings of this relationship has the potential of designing interventions that improve both frailty and cognitive performance in old age (13).

Finally, there is increasing data on how social determinants of health, impact the development and expression of frailty and dementia; those older adults who live in countries with high inequality have the most adverse outcomes (14–18). Taking advantage of the multi-country design of the Study on Global Ageing and Adult Health (SAGE) (includes six low- and middle-income countries) we aimed at understanding the association between frailty and cognitive performance in older adults from different sociocultural background.

# Methods

## Design and sample

A cross-sectional was used to baseline data of SAGE (2007–2010). This study was an initiative from the World Health Organization (WHO) to determine the factors that impact aging in six low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): Ghana, Mexico, India, South Africa, Russia, and China. It includes a set of harmonized questionnaires from different dominions (e.g., health, physical function, demographics, etc.), which was applied to a representative sample of adults aged 50 or older from the participant countries. Complete description of objectives and procedures is available elsewhere (19). For purposes of this report, only participants with complete baseline information from all the countries were included.

Ethical approval. The SAGE study was approved by the World Health Organization's Ethical Review Board (reference number RPC149) and the Ethical and Protocol Review Committee of each country. Written informed consent was obtained from all study respondents.

# Clinical Frailty Scale Decision Tree

Currently, numerous tools have been developed and used to categorize someone as frail (20). Among these instruments, the Clinical Frailty Scale, was developed to derive frailty levels after a geriatric assessment, resulting in scores from 1 (robust older adult) to 9 (end-stage frailty) (21). Using figurines and descriptive test for each level of frailty, the trained clinician can derive a category, that in turn may trigger interventions (22). Recently, a decision tree was developed to facilitate the application of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) (21) for a wider range of professionals, not necessarily experts in the field (23). Since this is a very recent add-on to CFS, reports on its usage are still limited. However, a large study showed its ability to predict adverse health-related outcomes in older adults admitted in the intensive care unit (24), so its application in the community could be very useful.

As with the CFS, the decision tree results in frailty levels. The levels of the CFS decision tree were integrated according to instructions available in the original manuscript (23) and the website.<fnref n="1" /> The classification of frailty levels was built from the variables available in the SAGE survey including: activities of daily living (ADL)—bathing, getting dressed, eating, walking, getting up; instrumental ADL (IADL)—housework, participating in community activities, doing your day to day work, carrying things, using private or public transport, getting out of your home; chronic diseases—arthritis, stroke, angina, diabetes, chronic lung disease, asthma, depression, hypertension, cataract; self-rated health; fatigue—you have enough energy for everyday life; physical activity—any moderate-intensity sports, fitness or leisure activities causing a small increase in breathing or heart rate for at least 10 min at a time (See Supplementary Table A and Figure 1). Using the classification tree, frailty levels were defined from 1 to 7 according to the flow of conditions and characteristics reported by older persons. Levels 8 and 9 refer to individuals with terminal conditions, since SAGE does not include them, these levels were not considered.

## Cognitive performance

The SAGE includes five cognitive tests to assess this dominion: immediate and delayed verbal recall (i.e., episodic memory), forward and backward digit span (i.e., working memory), and verbal fluency (i.e., semantic memory). For the immediate verbal recall test, interviewers first read a list of 10 words aloud and asked the participants to immediately recall as many words as they could in one minute (three trials), recording the best score. The delayed recall ability was assessed by asking participants to recall the list of words; and scored in a similar fashion as the previous test. Forward and backward digit span, scoring the number of correct series repeating in two trials (9 points-forward span and 8 points-backward span). Naming as many animals that come to one's mind in one minute was used to test verbal fluency (spontaneous language production), with possible scores ranging from 0 to 70 (one point for each valid animal name). Z-scores were calculated to facilitate the comparison of the cognitive tests' performance, between individuals and countries; a

<footnote n="1">1 https://www.dal.ca/sites/gmr/our-tools/clinical-frailty-scale/cfs-classification-tree.html</footnote>
previously reported method (25). Furthermore, individual z-scores from each cognitive domain were added to obtain a global composite z-score for cognitive performance by countries.

## Statistical analysis

Initially, all variables included were described by sex. Differences in the means for the composite cognitive z-score between CFS levels—also by sex—was done with one-way ANOVA, including *post hoc* estimation with Bonferroni's test. The analysis of the CFC levels and the z scores of each one of the cognitive domains is also presented (see Supplementary Table B). The descriptive and ANOVA analyzes were also done for each country (see Supplementary Tables C, D). Finally, three multinomial models were fitted by sex to estimate the effects of age and education on cognition between CFS levels and their corresponding estimated probabilities were plotted. Additionally, adjusted models for country were performed (see Supplementary Table E). All statistical analyses were performed with STATA version 17.0.

## Results

From the 35,330 participants aged 50 or older, 30,674 (86.8%) had complete data on the variables of interest. Our study sample was constituted by participants from China (39.5%), Ghana (13.1%), India (20.4%), México (6.8%), Russia (10.6%), and South Africa (9.6%) (See Supplementary Table C). When analyzing the total sample by sex, no differences in age were observed, but there was higher level of education in men.

Regarding CFS levels, higher levels of frailty were more frequent for women (26.5% in level 6 and 14.5% in level 7). These differences by sex were clear when observed in the number of chronic diseases (0 men vs. 1 women), in worse health perception (15.7% in men vs. 19.8% in women), physical activity (13.7% in men vs. 10.6% women) (see Table 1). An inverse relationship was found between the cognitive z-score and levels of frailty and sex, 1 (x̄ men = 0.57,95%CI [0.35to0.79]; x̄ women = 0.61,95%CI[0.15to1.08]), level 2 (x̄ men = 0.63,95%CI[0.58to0.69]); x̄ women = 0.46,95%CI[0.40to0.53]), level 3 (x̄ men = 0.41,95%CI[0.38to 0.43]); x̄ women = 0.23,95%CI[0.20 to

<table><caption>TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics stratified by sex.</caption><thead><tr><th>Variables</th><th>Total (n=30,674)</th><th>Male (n=14,060)</th><th>Female (n=16,614)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Age, mean (SD)</td><td>63.30 (9.60)</td><td>63.20 (9.50)</td><td>63.4 (9.70)*</td></tr><tr><td>Education, mean (SD)</td><td>5.50 (5.00)</td><td>6.30 (5.00)</td><td>4.8 (5.00)**</td></tr><tr><td>Clinical Frailty Scale, n (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>89 (0.30)</td><td>60 (0.40)</td><td>29 (0.20)*</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>1,906 (6.20)</td><td>1,107 (7.90)</td><td>799 (4.80)*</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>7,472 (24.40)</td><td>3,904 (27.80)</td><td>3,568 (21.50)**</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>941 (3.10)</td><td>431 (3.10)</td><td>510 (3.10)</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>8,861 (28.90)</td><td>3,966 (28.20)</td><td>4,895 (29.50)</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>7,405 (24.10)</td><td>2,995 (21.30)</td><td>4,410 (26.50)**</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>4,000 (13.00)</td><td>1,597 (11.40)</td><td>2,403 (14.50)*</td></tr><tr><td>ADL, median (IQR)</td><td>0 (1.00)</td><td>0 (1.00)</td><td>0 (1.00)**</td></tr><tr><td>IADL, median (IQR)</td><td>1 (4.00)</td><td>1 (3.00)</td><td>2 (4.00)**</td></tr><tr><td>Number of chronic diseases, median (IQR)</td><td>1 (2.0)</td><td>0 (1.0)</td><td>1 (2.0)**</td></tr><tr><td>SRH, n (%)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Very good</td><td>893 (2.9)</td><td>533 (3.8)</td><td>360 (2.2)</td></tr><tr><td>Good</td><td>8,892 (29.0)</td><td>4,650 (33.1)</td><td>4,242 (25.5)**</td></tr><tr><td>Moderate</td><td>14,833 (48.4)</td><td>6,462 (46.0)</td><td>8,371 (50.4)**</td></tr><tr><td>Bad</td><td>5,493 (17.9)</td><td>2,206 (15.7)</td><td>3,287 (19.8)**</td></tr><tr><td>Very bad</td><td>563 (1.8)</td><td>209 (1.5)</td><td>354 (2.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Energy, n (%)</td><td>5,328 (17.4)</td><td>2,748 (19.5)</td><td>2,580 (15.5)**</td></tr><tr><td>Physical activity, n (%)</td><td>3,693 (12.1)</td><td>1,929 (13.7)</td><td>1,764 (10.6)*</td></tr><tr><td>Cognitive tests standardized score, mean (SD)</td><td>0.01 (0.99)</td><td>0.15 (0.98)</td><td>-0.13 (0.98) **</td></tr><tr><td>Immediate verbal Recall, mean (SD)</td><td>4.7 (1.7)</td><td>4.8 (1.8)</td><td>4.6 (1.7) **</td></tr><tr><td>Forward digit span, mean (SD)</td><td>5.6 (1.8)</td><td>5.8 (1.8)</td><td>5.5 (1.8) **</td></tr><tr><td>Backward digit span, mean (SD)</td><td>3.0 (1.6)</td><td>3.2 (1.5)</td><td>2.8 (1.6) **</td></tr><tr><td>Verbal Fluency, mean (SD)</td><td>12.2 (5.0)</td><td>12.7 (5.0)</td><td>11.8 (4.9) **</td></tr><tr><td>Delayed verbal Recall, mean (SD)</td><td>4.9 (2.2)</td><td>5.0 (2.2)</td><td>4.8 (2.2) **</td></tr></tbody></table>

ADL, activities of daily living; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living; SRH, self-rated health. Test of means and proportions by sex *p* < 0.005 and **p* < 0.001.
0.26]), level 4 (x̄ men = 0.08,95%CI[-0.01to 0.16]; x̄ women = -0.15,95%CI[-0.23to-0.62]), level 5 (x̄ men = 0.13,95%CI[0.11to 0.16]; x̄ women = -0.10,95%CI[-0.13to-0.07]) level 6 x̄ men = -0.02,95%CI [-0.05to0.02]); x̄ women = -0.28,95%CI[-0.31to-0.25]), level 7 x̄ men = -0.39,95%CI[-0.44to-0.34]); x̄ women = -0.65,95%CI[-0.68to-0.60]), (see Figure 1). When analyzing the differences for the composite cognitive z-score between levels of frailty, no significant differences were found for levels below 4. Moreover, there were no differences in the cognitive score between levels 4 and 5 in both men and women (see Table 2 and Figure 1).

Table 3 shows the relative risk ratios (RRR) obtained from the unadjusted and adjusted multivariable multinomial logistic regression models that differentiated the cognitive score between frailty levels with level 1 (Very Fit) as the reference category. For men, the unadjusted model showed that for each additional unit of the cognitive score, the relative risks of being fit (level 2) (RRR = 1.08; *p* = 0.60) compared to being level 1 did not increase significantly. On the other hand, the risks related to having very mild (level 4), mild (level 5), moderate (level 6), and severe frailty (level 7) decreased significantly (RRR = 0.57, RRR = 0.61, RRR = 0.51, RRR = 0.34; *p* < 0.001) as cognitive scores increased. When controlling for age (model 2), this inverse association between cognition and frailty levels was maintained (RRR = 0.56, RRR = 0.66, RRR = 0.58, RRR = 0.41; *p* < 0.001). Furthermore, when adjusting for education and

age, the differences between the cognitive score and the CFS levels were reduced; and when comparing level 5 to level 1 lost significance (RRR = 0.80; *p* = 0.13).

For women, the inverse relationship between frailty levels was maintained as the cognitive score increases even for level 2 (RRR = 0.85; *p* = 0.41), although the relative risks decreased significantly at level 3 (RRR = 0.66; *p* = 0.03). When controlling for age, the relative risks between levels 4 and 7 significantly decrease as cognitive performance increases (RRR = 0.46, RRR = 0.52, RRR = 0.44, RRR = 0.24; *p* < 0.001) (see Table 3).

Finally, regarding the sex-stratified predicted probabilities for cognitive performance by different levels of frailty (see Figure 2), the probability to experience higher levels of frailty (i.e., CFS 7) increases with lowering cognitive performance. Moreover, having lower frailty levels (i.e., CFS 2 or 3) decreases the probability of having cognitive impairment.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge this is the first study to assess the association between cognitive performance tests and frailty measured using the CFS decision tree. Moreover, this adds to the current knowledge on how frailty relates to cognitive status in older

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 1
Comparison of the cognitive tests standardized scores between Clinical Frailty Scale levels by sex.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>TABLE 2 Composite cognitive z-scores mean differences by Clinical Frailty Scale Level and stratified by sex, including *post hoc* Bonferroni's test.</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">CFS level</th><th colspan="6">Male</th><th colspan="6">Female</th></tr><tr><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2</td><td>0.06</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-0.14</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>-0.16</td><td>-0.22</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-0.38</td><td>-0.23**</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>-0.49*</td><td>-0.55**</td><td>-0.33*</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-0.75*</td><td>-0.60**</td><td>-0.37**</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>-0.43**</td><td>-0.49**</td><td>-0.27**</td><td>0.05</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-0.71*</td><td>-0.56*</td><td>-0.33**</td><td>0.04</td><td>1</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>-0.58**</td><td>-0.65**</td><td>-0.42**</td><td>-0.09</td><td>-0.15*</td><td>1</td><td>-0.89**</td><td>-0.74**</td><td>-0.50**</td><td>-0.13*</td><td>-0.17**</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>-0.95**</td><td>-1.02**</td><td>-0.79**</td><td>-0.46**</td><td>-0.52**</td><td>-0.37**</td><td>-1.25**</td><td>-1.10**</td><td>-0.87**</td><td>-0.50**</td><td>-0.54**</td><td>-0.36**</td></tr></tbody></table>

CFS, Clinical Frailty Scale. *p* < 0.005 and **p* < 0.001.
<table><caption>TABLE 3 Sex-stratified multinomial regression models for composite cognitive z-score and Clinical Frailty Scale level (level 1 as reference).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">CFS level</th><th colspan="4">Men</th><th colspan="4">Women</th></tr><tr><th>Model 1*</th><th>Model 2†</th><th>Model 3 /</th><th>Model 3 /*</th><th>Model 1 *</th><th>Model 2 †</th><th>Model 3 /</th><th>Model 3 /*</th></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="8" style="text-align: center;">(RRR, 95% CI, value of p)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td colspan="8" style="text-align: center;">Reference level</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>1.08 (0.82-1.42, 0.60)</td><td>1.06 (0.80-1.41, 0.68)</td><td>1.13 (0.84-1.53, 0.42)</td><td>1.16 (0.85-1.59, 0.346)</td><td>0.85 (0.58-1.25, 0.41)</td><td>0.90 (0.60-1.34, 0.60)</td><td>0.98 (0.63-1.53, 0.94)</td><td>0.98 (0.63-1.54, 0.933)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>0.83 (0.63-1.09, 0.18)</td><td>0.81 (0.61-1.07, 0.14)</td><td>0.95 (0.70-1.28, 0.72)</td><td>1.03 (0.76-1.40, 0.861)</td><td>0.66 (0.45-0.96, 0.03)</td><td>0.68 (0.46-1.01, 0.06)</td><td>0.77 (0.50-1.19, 0.24)</td><td>0.79 (0.51-1.22, 0.288)</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>0.57 (0.43-0.76, &lt;0.001)</td><td>0.56 (0.41-0.75, &lt;0.001)</td><td>0.66 (0.48-0.90, 0.01)</td><td>0.72 (0.52-1.00, 0.049)</td><td>0.43 (0.29-0.64, &lt;0.001)</td><td>0.46 (0.31-0.69, &lt;0.001)</td><td>0.56 (0.35-0.87, 0.01)</td><td>0.58 (0.37-0.92, 0.20)</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>0.61 (0.46-0.80, &lt;0.001)</td><td>0.66 (0.50-0.87, &lt;0.001)</td><td>0.80 (0.59-1.07, 0.13)</td><td>0.77 (0.57-1.05, 0.097)</td><td>0.45 (0.31-0.66, &lt;0.001)</td><td>0.52 (0.35-0.77, 0.001)</td><td>0.65 (0.42-1.01, 0.05)</td><td>0.64 (0.41-1.00, 0.049)</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>0.51 (0.39-0.68, &lt;0.001)</td><td>0.58 (0.47-0.77, &lt;0.001)</td><td>0.74 (0.55-0.99, 0.04)</td><td>0.68 (0.50-0.92, 0.014)</td><td>0.37 (0.25-0.54, &lt;0.001)</td><td>0.44 (0.30-0.65, &lt;0.001)</td><td>0.57 (0.36-0.88, 0.01)</td><td>0.64 (0.41-1.00, 0.49)</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>0.34 (0.26-0.45, &lt;0.001)</td><td>0.41 (0.31-0.55, &lt;0.001)</td><td>0.51 (0.38-0.69, &lt;0.001)</td><td>0.44 (0.32-0.60, &lt;0.001)</td><td>0.24 (0.17-0.36, &lt;0.001)</td><td>0.32 (0.22-0.48, &lt;0.001)</td><td>0.40 (0.26-0.62, &lt;0.001)</td><td>0.55(0.35-0.85, 0.08)</td></tr></tbody></table>

CFS, Clinical Frailty Scale; RRR, relative risk ratio; CI, confidence interval. *Not adjusted. †Adjusted for age. /Adjusted for age and education. /*Adjusted for age, education and country.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

adults, the higher the burden of frailty the lower the cognitive test scores. As shown in our results, those in charge of older adults should be careful to further examine the cognitive status in those individuals with 3 or higher levels. Considering the CFS is a preliminary evaluation that leads to a more comprehensive assessment, the decision tree also showed that these levels are not limited to a progression in frailty, but alert that there might be a global decay in the older adult (i.e., mental and physical health), that merits further assessment (23, 26).

Previous evidence shows that frailty could precede dementia and other neurocognitive disorders, and even be related to neuropathological findings (27–29). On the other hand, there have been some interventions—mainly based in physical

activity—that have shown to improve the overall health status of an older adult with frailty (30, 31), and this has the potential to stop the progression of both cognitive and physical decline. However, this relationship is still not fully understood, and merits further research.

Interestingly, our results were from a multi-national sample—the SAGE study—diming the effect of cross-cultural issues when assessing, since it utilizes a common tool and standardization with z-scores was used in this work, similar to what was used previously (25, 32). This points to the possible true nature of the association of mental and physical health, regardless of sociocultural differences. Assessment with the CFS decision tree allows to have a quick screening of an individual, as a screening of global health, and
according to our results it could also alert about mental health. For
instance, older adults with CFS level 3 or lower have the lowest
probability of having low cognitive test scores and might not need
further evaluation. In contrast, individuals with CFS levels ≥4
might benefit from a further evaluation, possibly focusing
on cognition.

Although the tree is recommended only as an aid in assessing an
older adult, it could be useful as a screen measure in an incremental
approach to assessing older adults. Other studies have shown similar
results, using other tools to measure frailty and other cognitive tests,
whilst results seem consistent with that previously reported (12,
33–37). Moreover, one of the advantages that the CFS has is the
ability to capture a continuum of frailty, rather than a limited ‘all or
nothing’ grouping that almost all the other tools used for assessing
frailty provide. This is helpful since interventions or different levels
of care can be tailored to each of the levels. Moreover, a combination
of CFS level with the presence or not of cognitive impairment is
an add-on.

It is well-known that older population continues to grow, but that
there are not enough resources to attend the needs of this age group.
The CFS decision tree, could aid in identifying those at risk not only
of increased risk of adverse health-related outcomes (23, 38, 39), but
also of those that could be in the verge of presenting overt dementia,
and benefit from early intervention for frailty that could impact
cognitive health.

We need to acknowledge the limitations of our work. First, as a cross-
sectional study, is difficult to address causality; though, longitudinal
studies have shown that this might be the case. The SAGE has advantages,
but there is no availability of follow-up (only for Mexico, currently), and
some years have passed since the baseline data was released. Cognitive
status was not assessed with the state-of-the-art evaluation, but similar
approaches to testing cognition have been used in epidemiologic studies.
Finally, we recognize that having a multi-country approach could be in
one hand, an advantage, but in the other also a source of variability.
Further research using these data (and hopefully follow-ups) should
be aimed at unveiling the relationships of social, cultural, and economic
characteristics of each country when it comes to the relationship between
frailty and cognition.

Conclusion

The CFS decision tree used to assess frailty shows differences with
lower scores for cognitive tests across different countries, adding to
the existing knowledge an easy-to-use tool to assess frailty on how
cognition and physical health are closely related.

References

1. Rodríguez-Mañas L, Féart C, Mann G, Viña J, Chatterji S, Chodzko-Zajko W, et al. Searching for an operational definition of frailty: a Delphi method based consensus statement: the frailty operative definition-consensus conference project. *J Gerontol A*. (2013) 68:62–7. doi: 10.1093/gerona/gls119

2. Archibald MM, Lawless MT, Ambagtsheer RC, Kitson AL. Understanding consumer perceptions of frailty screening to inform knowledge translation and health service improvements. *Age Ageing*. (2021) 50:227–32. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afaa187

3. van Kan GA, Rolland Y, Houles M, Gillette-Guyonnet S, Soto M, Vellas B. The assessment of frailty in older adults. *Clin Geriatr Med*. (2010) 26:275–86. doi: 10.1016/j.cger.2010.02.002

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be
made available by the authors, without undue reservation. The
datasets are available in the WHO repository, http://apps.who.int/
healthinfo/systems/surveydata/index.php/catalog/sage/about.

Author contributions

RG-C performed the statistical analysis and wrote the first draft.
JA-F and MB reviewed and added additional ideas. MP-Z had the
original idea and wrote the first draft and added additional ideas for
the statistical analysis. LG-R supervised all the stages of the manuscript
and added additional ideas. All authors contributed to the article and
approved the submitted version.

Funding

The publication of this paper was supported by Instituto Nacional
de Geriatría, México.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim
that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed
by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online
at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2023.1166365/
full#supplementary-material

4. Thillainadesan J, Scott IA, Le Couteur DG. Frailty, a multisystem ageing syndrome. *Age Ageing*. (2020) 49:758–63. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afaa112

5. Inouye SK, Studenski S, Tinetti ME, Kuchel GA. Geriatric syndromes: clinical, research, and policy implications of a core geriatric concept. *J Am Geriatr Soc*. (2007) 55:780–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01156.x

6. Tinetti ME, Inouye SK, Gill TM, Doucette JT. Shared risk factors for falls, incontinence, and functional dependence. Unifying the approach to geriatric syndromes. JAMA. (1995) 273:1348–53. doi: 10.1001/jama.1995.03520410042024
7. Vasquez-Goñi GAJ, Papuico-Romero BM, Urrunaga-Pastor D, Runzer-Colmenares FM, Parodi JE. The depressed frail phenotype as a risk factor for mortality in older adults: a prospective cohort in Peru. *Heliyon*. (2022) 8:e08640. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021. e08640

8. Ellwood A, Quinn C, Mountain G. Psychological and social factors associated with coexisting frailty and cognitive impairment: a systematic review. *Res Aging*. (2021) 44:448–64. doi: 10.1177/01640275211045603

9. Pearson E, Siskind D, Hubbard RE, Gordon EH, Coulson EJ, Warren N. Frailty and severe mental illness: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. *J Psychiatr Res*. (2022) 147:166–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.01.014

10. Pedersen BK. Physical activity and muscle-brain crosstalk. *Nat Rev Endocrinol*. (2019) 15:383–92. doi: 10.1038/s41574-019-0174-x

11. Wallace LMK, Theou O, Darvesh S, Bennett DA, Buchman AS, Andrew MK, et al. Neuropathologic burden and the degree of frailty in relation to global cognition and dementia. *Neurology*. (2020) 95:e3269–79. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000010944

12. Ávila-Funes JA, Pina-Escudero SD, Aguilar-Navarro S, Gutierrez-Robledo M, Ruiz-Arregui L, Amieva H. Cognitive impairment and low physical activity are the components of frailty more strongly associated with disability. *J Nutr Health Aging*. (2011) 15:683–9. doi: 10.1007/s12603-011-0111-8

13. Veninsek G, Gabrovec B. Management of frailty at individual level—clinical management: systematic literature review. *Zdr Varst*. (2018) 57:106–15. doi: 10.2478/sjph-2018-0014

14. Hayajneh AA, Rababa M. The association of frailty with poverty in older adults: a systematic review. *Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord*. (2021) 50:407–13. doi: 10.1159/000520486

15. Wang J, Hulme C. Frailty and socioeconomic status: a systematic review. *J Public Health Res*. (2021) 10:2036. doi: 10.4081/jphr.2021.2036

16. Duppen D, van der Elst MCJ, Dury S, Lambotte D, de Donder LD-SCOPE. The social Environment's relationship with frailty: evidence from existing studies. *J Appl Gerontol*. (2019) 38:3–26. doi: 10.1177/0733464816688310

17. Llibre Rodriguez JJ, Prina AM, Acosta D, Guerra M, Huang Y, Jacob KS, et al. The prevalence and correlates of frailty in urban and rural populations in Latin America, China, and India: a 10/66 population-based survey. *J Am Med Dir Assoc*. (2018) 19:287–295.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.09.026

18. Prince M, Graham N, Brodaty H, Rimmer E, Varghese M, Chiu H, et al. Alzheimer disease International's 10/66 dementia research group—one model for action research in developing countries. *Int J Geriatr Psychiatry*. (2004) 19:178–81. doi: 10.1002/gps.1059

19. Kowal P, Chatterji S, Naidoo N, Biritwum R, Fan W, Lopez Ridaura R, et al. Data resource profile: the World Health Organization study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE). *Int J Epidemiol*. (2012) 41:1639–49. doi: 10.1093/ije/dys210

20. Moloney E, Sezgin D, O'Donovan M, Adja KYC, McGrath K, Liew A, et al. The diagnostic accuracy and clinimetric properties of screening instruments to identify frail older adults attending emergency departments: a protocol for a mixed methods systematic review and meta-analysis. *Int J Environ Res Public Health*. (2022) 19:1380. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19031380

21. Rockwood K, Song X, MacKnight C, Bergman H, Hogan DB, McDowell I, et al. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. *CMAJ*. (2005) 173:489–95. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.050051

22. Thandi M, Wong ST, Aponte-Hao S, Grandy M, Mangin D, Singer A, et al. Strategies for working across Canadian practice-based research and learning networks (PBRLNs) in primary care: focus on frailty. *BMC Fam Pract*. (2021) 22:220. doi: 10.1186/s12875-021-01573-y

23. Theou O, Pérez-Zepeda MU, van der Valk AM, Searle SD, Howlett SE, Rockwood K. A classification tree to assist with routine scoring of the clinical frailty scale. *Age Ageing*. (2021) 50:1406–11. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afab006

24. Turcotte LA, Zalucky AA, Stall NM, Downar J, Rockwood K, Theou O, et al. Baseline frailty as a predictor of survival after critical care: a retrospective cohort study

of older adults receiving home care in Ontario Canada. *Chest*. (2021) 160:2101–11. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.06.009

25. Gildner TE, Liebert MA, Kowal P, Chatterji S, Snodgrass JJ. Associations between sleep duration, sleep quality, and cognitive test performance among older adults from six middle income countries: results from the study on global ageing and adult health (SAGE). *J Clin Sleep Med*. (2014) 10:613–21. doi: 10.5664/jcsm.3782

26. Church S, Rogers E, Rockwood K, Theou O. A scoping review of the clinical frailty scale. *BMC Geriatr*. (2020) 20:393. doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-01801-7

27. Wallace L, Hunter S, Theou O, Fleming J, Rockwood K, Brayne C. Frailty and neuropathology in relation to dementia status: the Cambridge City over-75s cohort study. *Int Psychogeriatr*. (2021) 33:1035–43. doi: 10.1017/S1041610220003932

28. Wallace LMK, Theou O, Godin J, Andrew MK, Bennett DA, Rockwood K. Investigation of frailty as a moderator of the relationship between neuropathology and dementia in Alzheimer's disease: a cross-sectional analysis of data from the rush memory and aging project. *Lancet Neurol*. (2019) 18:177–84. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30371-5

29. Borda MG, Pérez-Zepeda MU, Jaramillo-Jimenez A, Chaudhuri KR, Tovar-Rios DA, Wallace L, et al. Frailty in Parkinson's disease and its association with early dementia: a longitudinal study. *Parkinsonism Relat Disord*. (2022) 99:51–7. doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2022.05.004

30. Travers J, Romero-Ortuno R, Bailey J, Cooney MT. Delaying and reversing frailty: a systematic review of primary care interventions. *Br J Gen Pract*. (2019) 69:e61–9. doi: 10.3399/bjgp18X700241

31. Apóstolo J, Cooke R, Bobrowicz-Campos E, Santana S, Marcucci M, Cano A, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to prevent pre-frailty and frailty progression in older adults: a systematic review. *JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep*. (2018) 16:140–232. doi: 10.11124/JBISIR-2017-003382

32. Gildner TE, Liebert MA, Kowal P, Chatterji S, Josh Snodgrass J. Sleep duration, sleep quality, and obesity risk among older adults from six middle-income countries: findings from the study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE). *Am J Hum Biol*. (2014) 26:803–12. doi: 10.1002/ajhb.22603

33. Siejka TP, Srikanth VK, Hubbard RE, Moran C, Beare R, Wood AG, et al. Frailty is associated with cognitive decline independent of cerebral small vessel disease and brain atrophy. *J Gerontol A*. (2022) 77:1819–26. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glac078

34. Kusumastuti S, Hoogendijk EO, Gerds TA, Lund R, Mortensen EL, Huisman M, et al. Do changes in frailty, physical functioning, and cognitive functioning predict mortality in old age? Results from the longitudinal aging study Amsterdam. *BMC Geriatr*. (2022) 22:193. doi: 10.1186/s12877-022-02876-0

35. Lin SM, Apolinário D, Vieira Gomes GC, Cassales Tosi F, Magaldi RM, Busse AL, et al. Association of Cognitive Performance with frailty in older individuals with cognitive complaints. *J Nutr Health Aging*. (2022) 26:89–95. doi: 10.1007/s12603-021-1712-5

36. Ávila-Funes JÃ©A, Amieva HÃ©Ã™, Barberger-Gateau P, le Goff MÃ©, Raoux N, Ritchie K, et al. Cognitive impairment improves the predictive validity of the phenotype of frailty for adverse health outcomes: the three-city study. *J Am Geriatr Soc*. (2009) 57:453–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02136.x

37. Samper-Ternent R, al Snih S, Raji MA, Markides KS, Ottenbacher KJ. Relationship between frailty and cognitive decline in older Mexican Americans. *J Am Geriatr Soc*. (2008) 56:1845–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01947.x

38. Dicpinigaitis AJ, Hanft S, Cooper JB, Gandhi CD, Kazim SF, Schmidt MH, et al. Comparative associations of baseline frailty status and age with postoperative mortality and duration of hospital stay following metastatic brain tumor resection. *Clin Exp Metastasis*. (2022) 39:303–10. doi: 10.1007/s10585-021-10138-3

39. Pearce J, Swinson D, Cairns D, Nair S, Baxter M, Petty R, et al. Frailty and treatment outcome in advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer: an exploratory analysis of the GO2 trial. *J Geriatr Oncol*. (2022) 13:287–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2021.12.009