IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0197859.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Index or illusion: The case of frailty indices in the Health and Retirement Study

Author

Listed:
  • Yi-Sheng Chao
  • Hsing-Chien Wu
  • Chao-Jung Wu
  • Wei-Chih Chen

Abstract

Introduction: Frailty is a geriatric syndrome that has been defined differently with various indices. Without a uniform definition, it remains unclear how to interpret and compare different frailty indices (FIs). With the advances in index mining, we find it necessary to review the implicit assumptions about the creation of FIs. We are concerned the processing of frailty data may introduce measurement error and bias. We aim to review the assumptions, interpretability and predictive power of FIs regarding mortality. Methods: Three FIs, the Functional Domains Model proposed by Strawbridge et al. (1998), the Burden Model by Rockwood et al. (2007) and the Biologic Syndrome Model by Fried et al. (2004), were directly compared using the data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a longitudinal study since 1996 mainly following up Americans aged 50 years and over. The FIs were reproduced according to Cigolle et al. (2009) and interpreted with their input variables through forward-stepwise regression. Biases were the residuals of the FIs that could not be explained by own input variables. Any four of the input variables were used to create alternative indices. Discrete-time survival analysis was conducted to compare the predictive power of FIs, input variables and alternative indices on mortality. Results: We found frailty a syndrome not unique to the elderly. The FIs were produced with different degrees of bias. The FIs could not be fully interpreted with the theory-based input variables. The bias induced by the Biological Syndrome Model better predicted mortality than frailty status. A complicated FI, the Burden Model, could be simplified. The input variables better predicted mortality than the FIs. The continuous FIs predicted mortality better than the frailty statuses. At least 6865 alternative indices better predicted mortality than the FIs. Conclusion: FIs have been used as outcome in clinical trials and need to be reviewed for adequacy based on our findings. The three FIs are not closely linked to the theories because of bias introduced by data manipulation and excessive numbers of input variables. We are developing new algorithms to develop and validate innovative indices.

Suggested Citation

  • Yi-Sheng Chao & Hsing-Chien Wu & Chao-Jung Wu & Wei-Chih Chen, 2018. "Index or illusion: The case of frailty indices in the Health and Retirement Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-19, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0197859
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197859
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0197859
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0197859&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0197859?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Buuren, Stef & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Karin, 2011. "mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 45(i03).
    2. Horton, Nicholas J. & Kleinman, Ken P., 2007. "Much Ado About Nothing: A Comparison of Missing Data Methods and Software to Fit Incomplete Data Regression Models," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 61, pages 79-90, February.
    3. F. Thomas Juster & Richard Suzman, 1995. "An Overview of the Health and Retirement Study," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 30, pages 7-56.
    4. Moon, J. Robin & Glymour, M. Maria & Subramanian, S.V. & Avendaño, Mauricio & Kawachi, Ichiro, 2012. "Transition to retirement and risk of cardiovascular disease: Prospective analysis of the US health and retirement study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 526-530.
    5. Yi-Sheng Chao & Chao-Jung Wu, 2017. "Principal component-based weighted indices and a framework to evaluate indices: Results from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 1996 to 2011," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-20, September.
    6. Calcagno, Vincent & de Mazancourt, Claire, 2010. "glmulti: An R Package for Easy Automated Model Selection with (Generalized) Linear Models," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 34(i12).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kristian Kleinke & Mark Stemmler & Jost Reinecke & Friedrich Lösel, 2011. "Efficient ways to impute incomplete panel data," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 95(4), pages 351-373, December.
    2. Göran Kauermann & Mehboob Ali, 2021. "Semi-parametric regression when some (expensive) covariates are missing by design," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 62(4), pages 1675-1696, August.
    3. repec:jss:jstsof:45:i03 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Hapfelmeier, A. & Ulm, K., 2014. "Variable selection by Random Forests using data with missing values," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 129-139.
    5. Lena Walther & Lukas M. Fuchs & Jürgen Schupp & Christian von Scheve, 2019. "Living Conditions and the Mental Health and Well-being of Refugees: Evidence from a Representative German Panel Study," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 1029, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    6. Noémi Kreif & Richard Grieve & Iván Díaz & David Harrison, 2015. "Evaluation of the Effect of a Continuous Treatment: A Machine Learning Approach with an Application to Treatment for Traumatic Brain Injury," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(9), pages 1213-1228, September.
    7. Rashmita Basu, 2013. "Willingness-to-pay to prevent Alzheimer’s disease: a contingent valuation approach," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 233-245, December.
    8. Hank, Karsten & Jürges, Hendrik & Schupp, Jürgen & Wagner, Gert G., 2006. "Die Messung der Greifkraft als objektives Gesundheitsmaß in sozialwissenschaftlichen Bevölkerungsumfragen: Erhebungsmethodische und inhaltliche Befunde auf der Basis von SHARE und SOEP," Discussion Papers 2006/6, Technische Universität Berlin, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Abhilash Bandam & Eedris Busari & Chloi Syranidou & Jochen Linssen & Detlef Stolten, 2022. "Classification of Building Types in Germany: A Data-Driven Modeling Approach," Data, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-23, April.
    10. repec:jss:jstsof:45:i04 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Elder, Harold W. & Rudolph, Patricia M., 2000. "Beliefs and actions: expectations and savings decisions by older Americans," Financial Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 33-45, 00.
    12. Boonstra Philip S. & Little Roderick J.A. & West Brady T. & Andridge Rebecca R. & Alvarado-Leiton Fernanda, 2021. "A Simulation Study of Diagnostics for Selection Bias," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 37(3), pages 751-769, September.
    13. Michael D. Hurd & James P. Smith, 2001. "Anticipated and Actual Bequests," NBER Chapters, in: Themes in the Economics of Aging, pages 357-392, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. John Bound & Michael Schoenbaum & Timothy Waidmann, 1996. "Race Differences in Labor Force Attachment and Disability Status," NBER Working Papers 5536, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Bernard W T Coetzee & Kevin J Gaston & Steven L Chown, 2014. "Local Scale Comparisons of Biodiversity as a Test for Global Protected Area Ecological Performance: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-11, August.
    16. Hugo Benitez-Silva & Moshe Buchinsky & John Rust & Emine Boz & Joseph B. Nichols & Sharbani Roy & Ignez Tristao, 2005. "Health Status, Insurance, and Expenditures in the Transition from Work to Retirement," Department of Economics Working Papers 05-11, Stony Brook University, Department of Economics.
    17. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Michael F. Bryan & Simon M. Potter & Giorgio Topa & Wilbert Van der Klaauw, 2008. "Rethinking the measurement of household inflation expectations: preliminary findings," Staff Reports 359, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    18. Christopher J Greenwood & George J Youssef & Primrose Letcher & Jacqui A Macdonald & Lauryn J Hagg & Ann Sanson & Jenn Mcintosh & Delyse M Hutchinson & John W Toumbourou & Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz &, 2020. "A comparison of penalised regression methods for informing the selection of predictive markers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.
    19. Liangyuan Hu & Lihua Li, 2022. "Using Tree-Based Machine Learning for Health Studies: Literature Review and Case Series," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-13, December.
    20. Norah Alyabs & Sy Han Chiou, 2022. "The Missing Indicator Approach for Accelerated Failure Time Model with Covariates Subject to Limits of Detection," Stats, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-13, May.
    21. Feldkircher, Martin, 2014. "The determinants of vulnerability to the global financial crisis 2008 to 2009: Credit growth and other sources of risk," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 19-49.
    22. Newton, Nicky J. & Ryan, Lindsay H. & King, Rachel T. & Smith, Jacqui, 2014. "Cohort differences in the marriage–health relationship for midlife women," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 64-72.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0197859. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.