Collin J.C. Exmann , Eline C.M. Kooijmans , Karlijn J. Joling , George L. Burchell , Emiel O. Hoogendijk , Hein P.J. van Hout
{"title":"社区老年人死亡率预测模型:系统性综述。","authors":"Collin J.C. Exmann , Eline C.M. Kooijmans , Karlijn J. Joling , George L. Burchell , Emiel O. Hoogendijk , Hein P.J. van Hout","doi":"10.1016/j.arr.2024.102525","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>As complexity and comorbidities increase with age, the increasing number of community-dwelling older adults poses a challenge to healthcare professionals in making trade-offs between beneficial and harmful treatments, monitoring deteriorating patients and resource allocation. Mortality predictions may help inform these decisions. So far, a systematic overview on the characteristics of currently existing mortality prediction models, is lacking.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To provide a systematic overview and assessment of mortality prediction models for the community-dwelling older population.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic search of terms related to predictive modelling and older adults was performed until March 1st, 2024, in four databases. We included studies developing multivariable all-cause mortality prediction models for community-dwelling older adults (aged ≥65 years). Data extraction followed the CHARMS Checklist and Quality assessment was performed with the PROBAST tool.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 22 studies involving 38 unique mortality prediction models were included, of which 14 models were based on a cumulative deficit-based frailty index and 9 on machine learning. C-statistics of the models ranged from 0.60 to 0.93 for all studies versus 0.61–0.78 when a frailty index was used. Eight models reached c-statistics higher than 0.8 and reported calibration. The most used variables in all models were demographics, symptoms, diagnoses and physical functioning. Five studies accounting for eleven models had a high risk of bias.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Some mortality prediction models showed promising results for use in practice and most studies were of sufficient quality. However, more uniform methodology and validation studies are needed for clinical implementation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55545,"journal":{"name":"Ageing Research Reviews","volume":"101 ","pages":"Article 102525"},"PeriodicalIF":12.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mortality prediction models for community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Collin J.C. Exmann , Eline C.M. Kooijmans , Karlijn J. Joling , George L. Burchell , Emiel O. Hoogendijk , Hein P.J. van Hout\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.arr.2024.102525\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>As complexity and comorbidities increase with age, the increasing number of community-dwelling older adults poses a challenge to healthcare professionals in making trade-offs between beneficial and harmful treatments, monitoring deteriorating patients and resource allocation. Mortality predictions may help inform these decisions. So far, a systematic overview on the characteristics of currently existing mortality prediction models, is lacking.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To provide a systematic overview and assessment of mortality prediction models for the community-dwelling older population.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic search of terms related to predictive modelling and older adults was performed until March 1st, 2024, in four databases. We included studies developing multivariable all-cause mortality prediction models for community-dwelling older adults (aged ≥65 years). Data extraction followed the CHARMS Checklist and Quality assessment was performed with the PROBAST tool.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 22 studies involving 38 unique mortality prediction models were included, of which 14 models were based on a cumulative deficit-based frailty index and 9 on machine learning. C-statistics of the models ranged from 0.60 to 0.93 for all studies versus 0.61–0.78 when a frailty index was used. Eight models reached c-statistics higher than 0.8 and reported calibration. The most used variables in all models were demographics, symptoms, diagnoses and physical functioning. Five studies accounting for eleven models had a high risk of bias.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Some mortality prediction models showed promising results for use in practice and most studies were of sufficient quality. However, more uniform methodology and validation studies are needed for clinical implementation.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55545,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ageing Research Reviews\",\"volume\":\"101 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102525\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ageing Research Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S156816372400343X\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CELL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ageing Research Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S156816372400343X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CELL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Mortality prediction models for community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review
Introduction
As complexity and comorbidities increase with age, the increasing number of community-dwelling older adults poses a challenge to healthcare professionals in making trade-offs between beneficial and harmful treatments, monitoring deteriorating patients and resource allocation. Mortality predictions may help inform these decisions. So far, a systematic overview on the characteristics of currently existing mortality prediction models, is lacking.
Objective
To provide a systematic overview and assessment of mortality prediction models for the community-dwelling older population.
Methods
A systematic search of terms related to predictive modelling and older adults was performed until March 1st, 2024, in four databases. We included studies developing multivariable all-cause mortality prediction models for community-dwelling older adults (aged ≥65 years). Data extraction followed the CHARMS Checklist and Quality assessment was performed with the PROBAST tool.
Results
A total of 22 studies involving 38 unique mortality prediction models were included, of which 14 models were based on a cumulative deficit-based frailty index and 9 on machine learning. C-statistics of the models ranged from 0.60 to 0.93 for all studies versus 0.61–0.78 when a frailty index was used. Eight models reached c-statistics higher than 0.8 and reported calibration. The most used variables in all models were demographics, symptoms, diagnoses and physical functioning. Five studies accounting for eleven models had a high risk of bias.
Conclusion
Some mortality prediction models showed promising results for use in practice and most studies were of sufficient quality. However, more uniform methodology and validation studies are needed for clinical implementation.
期刊介绍:
With the rise in average human life expectancy, the impact of ageing and age-related diseases on our society has become increasingly significant. Ageing research is now a focal point for numerous laboratories, encompassing leaders in genetics, molecular and cellular biology, biochemistry, and behavior. Ageing Research Reviews (ARR) serves as a cornerstone in this field, addressing emerging trends.
ARR aims to fill a substantial gap by providing critical reviews and viewpoints on evolving discoveries concerning the mechanisms of ageing and age-related diseases. The rapid progress in understanding the mechanisms controlling cellular proliferation, differentiation, and survival is unveiling new insights into the regulation of ageing. From telomerase to stem cells, and from energy to oxyradical metabolism, we are witnessing an exciting era in the multidisciplinary field of ageing research.
The journal explores the cellular and molecular foundations of interventions that extend lifespan, such as caloric restriction. It identifies the underpinnings of manipulations that extend lifespan, shedding light on novel approaches for preventing age-related diseases. ARR publishes articles on focused topics selected from the expansive field of ageing research, with a particular emphasis on the cellular and molecular mechanisms of the aging process. This includes age-related diseases like cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and neurodegenerative disorders. The journal also covers applications of basic ageing research to lifespan extension and disease prevention, offering a comprehensive platform for advancing our understanding of this critical field.