scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Xiaowei Song

Bio: Xiaowei Song is an academic researcher from Simon Fraser University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Cognition. The author has an hindex of 16, co-authored 46 publications receiving 5464 citations. Previous affiliations of Xiaowei Song include Fraser Health & Dalhousie University.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The ability of the Clinical Frailty Scale to predict death or need for institutional care, and correlated the results with those obtained from other established tools are determined.
Abstract: Background: There is no single generally accepted clinical definition of frailty. Previously developed tools to assess frailty that have been shown to be predictive of death or need for entry into an institutional facility have not gained acceptance among practising clinicians. We aimed to develop a tool that would be both predictive and easy to use. Methods: We developed the 7-point Clinical Frailty Scale and applied it and other established tools that measure frailty to 2305 elderly patients who participated in the second stage of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA). We followed this cohort prospectively; after 5 years, we determined the ability of the Clinical Frailty Scale to predict death or need for institutional care, and correlated the results with those obtained from other established tools. Results: The CSHA Clinical Frailty Scale was highly correlated ( r = 0.80) with the Frailty Index. Each 1-category increment of our scale significantly increased the medium-term risks of death (21.2% within about 70 mo, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.5%–30.6%) and entry into an institution (23.9%, 95% CI 8.8%–41.2%) in multivariable models that adjusted for age, sex and education. Analyses of receiver operating characteristic curves showed that our Clinical Frailty Scale performed better than measures of cognition, function or comorbidity in assessing risk for death (area under the curve 0.77 for 18-month and 0.70 for 70-month mortality). Interpretation: Frailty is a valid and clinically important construct that is recognizable by physicians. Clinical judgments about frailty can yield useful predictive information.

5,189 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: At all ages, a higher Frailty Index was associated with higher mortality and greater use of health care services, and at younger ages, recovery to the relatively fittest state was common, but the chance of complete recovery declined with age.
Abstract: Background The prevalence of frailty increases with age in older adults, but frailty is largely unreported for younger adults, where its associated risk is less clear. Furthermore, less is known about how frailty changes over time among younger adults. We estimated the prevalence and outcomes of frailty, in relation to accumulation of deficits, across the adult lifespan. Methods We analyzed data for community-dwelling respondents (age 15–102 years at baseline) to the longitudinal component of the National Population Health Survey, with seven two-year cycles, beginning 1994–1995. The outcomes were death, use of health services and change in health status, measured in terms of a Frailty Index constructed from 42 self-reported health variables. Results The sample consisted of 14 713 respondents (54.2% women). Vital status was known for more than 99% of the respondents. The prevalence of frailty increased with age, from 2.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7%–2.4%) among those younger than 30 years to 22.4% (95% CI 19.0%–25.8%) for those older than age 65, including 43.7% (95% CI 37.1%–50.8%) for those 85 and older. At all ages, the 160-month mortality rate was lower among relatively fit people than among those who were frail (e.g., 2% v. 16% at age 40; 42% v. 83% at age 75 or older). These relatively fit people tended to remain relatively fit over time. Relative to all other groups, a greater proportion of the most frail people used health services at baseline (28.3%, 95% CI 21.5%–35.5%) and at each follow-up cycle (26.7%, 95% CI 15.4%–28.0%). Interpretation Deficits accumulated with age across the adult spectrum. At all ages, a higher Frailty Index was associated with higher mortality and greater use of health care services. At younger ages, recovery to the relatively fittest state was common, but the chance of complete recovery declined with age.

443 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A frailty index, based on self-report data, can be used as a tool for capturing heterogeneity in the health status of older adults, and shows an exponential increase with age at an average rate of 3% per year.
Abstract: Background. While on average health declines with age, it also becomes more variable with age. As a consequence of this marked variability, it becomes more important as people age to have a means of summarizing health status, but how precisely to do so remains controversial. We developed one measure of health status, personal biological age, from a frailty index. The index itself is a count of deficits derived, in the first instance, from a clinical database. In our earlier investigations, personal biological age demonstrated a strong relationship with 6-year survival. Here we extend this approach to self-reported data. Methods. This is a secondary analysis of community-dwelling people aged 65 years and older (n = 9008) in the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. The frailty index was calculated from 40 self-reported variables, representing symptoms, attitudes, illnesses, and function. Personal biological age was estimated for each individual as the age corresponding to the mean chronological age for the index value. Individual frailty (and the related construct of fitness) was calculated as the difference between chronological and personal biological age. Results. The frailty index showed, on average, an exponential increase with age at an average rate of 3% per year. Although women, on average, demonstrate more frailty than men of the same chronological age, their survival chances are greater. The frailty index strongly correlated (Pearson r = .992 for women and .955 for men) with survival. Conclusions. A frailty index, based on self-report data, can be used as a tool for capturing heterogeneity in the health status of older adults.

256 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In a population survey, the FI-CGA is a valid means of quantifying frailty from routinely collected data and its predictive ability compared with other frailty measures is valid.
Abstract: Background and aims: Objectives were to develop a frailty index (FI) based on a standard comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) derived from a clinical examination; to assess the validity of the FI-CGA and to compare its precision with other frailty measures. Methods: Design: Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study, with five-year follow-up data. Setting: Second phase of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA-2); clinical examinations were performed in clinics, nursing homes, and patients’ homes. Participants: People selected (as either cognitively impaired cases or unimpaired controls) to receive the CSHA-2 clinical examination (n=2305; women=1431). Measurements: Clinical and performance-based measures and diagnostic data were extracted to correspond to the 10 impairment domains and the single comorbidity domain of a CGA. The proportion of deficits accumulated in each domain was calculated to yield the FI-CGA. The FI-CGA was validated and its predictive ability compared with other frailty measures. Results: Within the seven grades of fitness/frailty identified, subjects with greater frailty were older, less educated, and more likely to be women. The FI-CGA correlated highly with a previously validated, empirically-derived frailty index (r=0.76). Frailty was associated with higher risk of death (for each increment in frailty, the hazard ratio, adjusted for age, sex and education, was 1.23 (95% CI 1.18–1.29) and institutionalization (HR 1.20; 1.10–1.32). Conclusions: In a population survey, the FI-CGA is a valid means of quantifying frailty from routinely collected data.

233 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Clinicians, but not patients and caregivers, observed a significantly greater improvement in goal attainment among patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease who were taken galantamine than among those who were taking placebo.
Abstract: Background: Although cholinesterase inhibitors have produced statistically significant treatment effects, their clinical meaningfulness in Alzheimer9s disease is disputed. An important aspect of clinical meaningfulness is the extent to which an intervention meets the goals of treatment. Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer9s disease were treated with either galantamine or placebo for 4 months, followed by a 4-month open-label extension during which all patients received galantamine. The primary outcome measures were Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) scores from assessments by clinicians and by patients or caregivers of treatment goals set before treatment and evaluated every 2 months. Secondary outcome measures included the cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer9s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog), the Clinician9s Interview-based Impression of Change plus Caregiver Input (CIBIC-plus), the Disability Assessment for Dementia (DAD) and the Caregiving Burden Scale (CBS). To evaluate treatment effect, we calculated effect sizes (as standardized response means [SRMs]) and p values. Results: Of 159 patients screened, 130 (mean age 77 [standard deviation (SD) 7.7]; 63% women) were enrolled in the study (64 in the galantamine group and 66 in the placebo group); 128 were included in the analysis because they had at least one post-baseline evaluation. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the clinician-rated GAS scores showed a significantly greater improvement in goal attainment among patients in the galantamine group than among those in the placebo group (change from baseline score 4.8 [SD 9.6]) v. 0.9 [SD 9.5] respectively; SRM = 0.41, p = 0.02). The patient– caregiver-rated GAS scores showed a similar improvement in the galantamine group (change from baseline score 4.2 [SD 10.6]); however, because of the improvement also seen in the placebo group (2.3 [SD 9.0]), the difference between groups was not statistically significant (SRM = 0.20, p = 0.27). Of the secondary outcome measures, the ADAS-cog scores differed significantly between groups (SRM = –0.36, p = 0.04), as did the CIBIC-plus scores (SRM = –0.40, p = 0.03); no significant differences were in either the DAD scores (SRM = 0.28, p = 0.13) or the CBS scores (SRM = –0.17, p = 0.38). Interpretation: Clinicians, but not patients and caregivers, observed a significantly greater improvement in goal attainment among patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer9s disease who were taking galantamine than among those who were taking placebo.

153 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
06 Jun 1986-JAMA
TL;DR: The editors have done a masterful job of weaving together the biologic, the behavioral, and the clinical sciences into a single tapestry in which everyone from the molecular biologist to the practicing psychiatrist can find and appreciate his or her own research.
Abstract: I have developed "tennis elbow" from lugging this book around the past four weeks, but it is worth the pain, the effort, and the aspirin. It is also worth the (relatively speaking) bargain price. Including appendixes, this book contains 894 pages of text. The entire panorama of the neural sciences is surveyed and examined, and it is comprehensive in its scope, from genomes to social behaviors. The editors explicitly state that the book is designed as "an introductory text for students of biology, behavior, and medicine," but it is hard to imagine any audience, interested in any fragment of neuroscience at any level of sophistication, that would not enjoy this book. The editors have done a masterful job of weaving together the biologic, the behavioral, and the clinical sciences into a single tapestry in which everyone from the molecular biologist to the practicing psychiatrist can find and appreciate his or

7,563 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An emphasis is placed on low muscle strength as a key characteristic of sarcopenia, uses detection of low muscle quantity and quality to confirm the sarc Openia diagnosis, and provides clear cut-off points for measurements of variables that identify and characterise sarc openia.
Abstract: Background in 2010, the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) published a sarcopenia definition that aimed to foster advances in identifying and caring for people with sarcopenia. In early 2018, the Working Group met again (EWGSOP2) to update the original definition in order to reflect scientific and clinical evidence that has built over the last decade. This paper presents our updated findings. Objectives to increase consistency of research design, clinical diagnoses and ultimately, care for people with sarcopenia. Recommendations sarcopenia is a muscle disease (muscle failure) rooted in adverse muscle changes that accrue across a lifetime; sarcopenia is common among adults of older age but can also occur earlier in life. In this updated consensus paper on sarcopenia, EWGSOP2: (1) focuses on low muscle strength as a key characteristic of sarcopenia, uses detection of low muscle quantity and quality to confirm the sarcopenia diagnosis, and identifies poor physical performance as indicative of severe sarcopenia; (2) updates the clinical algorithm that can be used for sarcopenia case-finding, diagnosis and confirmation, and severity determination and (3) provides clear cut-off points for measurements of variables that identify and characterise sarcopenia. Conclusions EWGSOP2's updated recommendations aim to increase awareness of sarcopenia and its risk. With these new recommendations, EWGSOP2 calls for healthcare professionals who treat patients at risk for sarcopenia to take actions that will promote early detection and treatment. We also encourage more research in the field of sarcopenia in order to prevent or delay adverse health outcomes that incur a heavy burden for patients and healthcare systems.

6,250 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Developing more efficient methods to detect frailty and measure its severity in routine clinical practice would greatly inform the appropriate selection of elderly people for invasive procedures or drug treatments and would be the basis for a shift in the care of frail elderly people towards more appropriate goal-directed care.

5,456 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The ability of the Clinical Frailty Scale to predict death or need for institutional care, and correlated the results with those obtained from other established tools are determined.
Abstract: Background: There is no single generally accepted clinical definition of frailty. Previously developed tools to assess frailty that have been shown to be predictive of death or need for entry into an institutional facility have not gained acceptance among practising clinicians. We aimed to develop a tool that would be both predictive and easy to use. Methods: We developed the 7-point Clinical Frailty Scale and applied it and other established tools that measure frailty to 2305 elderly patients who participated in the second stage of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA). We followed this cohort prospectively; after 5 years, we determined the ability of the Clinical Frailty Scale to predict death or need for institutional care, and correlated the results with those obtained from other established tools. Results: The CSHA Clinical Frailty Scale was highly correlated ( r = 0.80) with the Frailty Index. Each 1-category increment of our scale significantly increased the medium-term risks of death (21.2% within about 70 mo, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.5%–30.6%) and entry into an institution (23.9%, 95% CI 8.8%–41.2%) in multivariable models that adjusted for age, sex and education. Analyses of receiver operating characteristic curves showed that our Clinical Frailty Scale performed better than measures of cognition, function or comorbidity in assessing risk for death (area under the curve 0.77 for 18-month and 0.70 for 70-month mortality). Interpretation: Frailty is a valid and clinically important construct that is recognizable by physicians. Clinical judgments about frailty can yield useful predictive information.

5,189 citations