Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.
Skip to main content
Download PDF

Comparisons of four cognitive-frailty measures in predicting dementia and disability

BMC Geriatrics volume 25, Article number: 245 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Several cognitive-frailty (CF) measurements, such as traditional CF, the CF phenotype, physio-cognitive decline syndrome (PCDS), and motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCRS) have been developed but their predictive abilities for incident dementia and incident disability are seldom compared. We conducted a 2-year prospective study to compare the associations of traditional CF, the CF phenotype, PCDS, and MCRS with incident dementia and incident disability.

Methods

In total, 755 individuals aged 65 years or older, without preexisting dementia or disability, participated in the baseline assessment and were subsequently monitored over a 2-year period. Data on cognitive and frailty components of traditional CF, the CF phenotype, PCDS, and MCRS, were collected. The logistic regression model was used to investigate independent associations of each CF measure with incident dementia and incident disability.

Results

In total, 505 participants completed the two annual follow-ups. After adjusting for other CF measures, age, and sex, incident dementia was significantly associated with PCDS (odds ratio [OR] = 2.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25 ~ 5.19) but was not significantly associated with traditional CF, the CF phenotype, or MCRS, and incident disability was significantly associated with the CF phenotype (OR = 2.90; 95% CI, 1.59 ~ 5.30) but was not significantly associated with traditional CF, PCDS, or MCRS. After adjusting for other CF measures, age, sex, educational level, and other variables, incident dementia was not independently associated with any CF measure, while the association of incident disability with the CF phenotype remained significant (OR = 2.72; 95% CI, 1.45 ~ 5.11).

Conclusions

The CF phenotype, MCRS, and PCDS can possibly identify a higher number of CF cases than can the traditional CF measure. While the CF phenotype was a significant predictor of incident disability, all four CF measures lacked an independent association with incident dementia over a 2-year period. Future studies with a longer study period are needed to validate our results.

Peer Review reports

Background

Cognitive frailty (CF) is a syndrome that coexists with physical frailty and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in the absence of dementia and other neurological disorders; it also is a precursor of neurodegenerative processes under different circumstances [1]. Approximately 70% of frail older adults also exhibit cognitive impairment [2], while half of cognitively impaired older adults also meet the Fried’s frailty criteria [3].

Cognitive frailty has been reported to increase the risks of adverse health outcomes, such as all-cause mortality, functional disability, dementia, poor quality of life, and suicidal ideation [2, 4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. Specifically, older adults with CF, relative to those with either frailty or cognitive impairment alone, face an elevated risk of developing dementia and limitations of activities of daily living (ADLs) [8,9,10]. To prevent dementia and disability in older adults, an effective strategy is to implement intervention programs targeting those diagnosed with CF [11, 12].

As established by the International Academy on Nutrition and Aging and the International Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics, this traditional definition characterizes CF as the concurrent presence of physical frailty and cognitive impairment [1]. However, the prevalence of CF based on this operational definition was very low, ranging 1% to 5% [2, 5, 9, 13, 14]. This low prevalence has limited clinical applicability for effective identification and intervention of CF cases [15]. On the other hand, a modified definition, CF phenotype, has broadened the traditional CF spectrum by combining pre-frailty or frailty with pre-MCI (subjective cognitive decline, SCD) as reversible cognitive frailty (RCF) and combining pre-frailty or frailty with MCI as potentially RCF (PRCF) [16]. Another two operational definitions of CF have also been formulated to provide a wider range of CF cases. The physio-cognitive decline syndrome (PCDS) is characterized by the presence of muscle weakness and/or gait slowness, accompanied by cognitive decline exceeding 1.5 standard deviations below age- and education-matched norms in any cognitive domain (cognitive impairment no dementia, CIND) [17,18,19]. The motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCRS) is defined as the coexistence of a slow gait and SCD [20, 21], in which a slow gait, as a component of frailty criteria, is known to be associated with the development of cognitive and physical declines [22, 23]. Relatively to traditional CF, the CF phenotype, PCDS, and MCRS measures might identify different numbers of CF cases for clinical interventions and might have distinctive predictive capacities for incident dementia and incident disability.

This 2-year prospective study was conducted to examine differences in identifying numbers of CF cases and predicting incident dementia and incident disability among the four CF measures of the traditional CF, CF phenotype, MCRS, and PCDS.

Methods

Study participants and settings

This study employed a prospective cohort design and recruited participants from outpatient clinics of Taipei Medical University Hospital over a period of August 2017 to December 2018 in Taipei, Taiwan. Inclusion criteria were individuals aged 65 years or older, capable of independent ambulation, and without recurrent or persistent care facility requirements. Individuals were excluded if they had communication difficulties, were unable to perform basic ADLs, had major health issues such as advanced cancer, major cardiopulmonary disease, or dementia, or did not participate in the follow-up evaluation due to family issues, transportation difficulties, weather conditions or poor health. The Institutional Review Board of Taipei Medical University approved the research protocol, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. A flow diagram of study participants at the baseline and two annual follow-up assessments is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram of study participants for incident dementia and incident disability developed during a 2-year study period

Full size image

Data collection

Information was gathered through individual interviews and performance assessments. At the baseline assessment, four CF measures (traditional CF, CF phenotype, MCRS, and PCDS) and covariates (sociodemographics, lifestyle factors, preexisting medical conditions, prescribed medications, balance assessments, depressive symptoms, cognitive measurements, and gait characteristics) were collected.

CF measures

CF is defined as a heterogeneous clinical syndrome combining cognitive impairment and pre-frailty or frailty and is excluded if there is dementia resulting from Alzheimer’s disease (AD) or other conditions [15, 16]. Traditional CF is defined as the simultaneous presence of physical frailty and MCI, excluding Alzheimer’s disease and other types of dementia. The CF phenotype encompasses two subtypes: RCF, characterized by the combination of pre-frailty/frailty and SCD, and PRCF, characterized by the combination of pre-frailty/frailty and MCI. PCDS is indicated by the simultaneous presence of mobility impairment without disability (slowness or/and weakness) and CIND. CIND in this study was determined by cognitive performance decreasing by ≥ 1.5 standard deviations below the mean in all cognitive domains assessed using the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (MDRS) [17]. MCRS is defined as the coexistence of slowness and SCD [20]. Individuals who had none of those conditions described in the four CF measures were indicated as having no CF [16].

In this study, cognitive impairment was determined by the MDRS, which contains five domains of attention, construction, initiation/perseveration, conceptualization, and memory. The total score of the MDRS ranges 0 ~ 144 points [24, 25]. In this study, MDRS scores of > 131, 126 ~ 131, and < 126 were used to indicate no dementia, MCI, and dementia, respectively [26]. Furthermore, the SCD status was indicated by a positive response to a question ('Do you feel that you have more problems with thinking and memory than most?'), with no evidence of objective cognitive impairment (MDRS score of > 131). On the other hand, the frailty component of the CF measures was assessed by five components of the frailty phenotype [27]: (1) unintentional weight loss, defined as a reduction in body weight exceeding 3 kg or 5% of the total body weight within the past year; (2) low grip strength, measured in kilograms of isometric force using a handgrip dynamometer, with the threshold for low grip strength set to ≤ 29 kg for males and ≤ 17 kg for females; (3) self-reported exhaustion, identified by a positive response to the question,'I felt that everything I did was an effort’; (4) slowness, characterized as having a gait velocity of < 0.8 m/s during normal walking; and (5) low physical activity, indicated by engaging in vigorous-intensity activity for fewer than 3 days per week, with each session lasting at least 20 min, or participating in moderate-intensity activity or walking for fewer than 5 days per week, with each session lasting at least 30 min. Physical activities were evaluated using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form [28]. Overall, frailty was identified when three or more of these five components were present, while pre-frailty was determined by the presence of one or two components, and non-frailty was confirmed in the absence of all five components.

Covariates

In this study, sociodemographics and lifestyle factors consisted of age, gender, body-mass index (BMI), educational attainment, monthly household income, regular exercise habits, current smoking status, and alcohol consumption. The BMI was classified into four categories: underweight (< 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (18.5 ~ 22.9 kg/m2), overweight (23 ~ 24.9 kg/m2), and obesity (≥ 25 kg/m2) [29]. Comorbidities were assessed through 12 chronic diseases of hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, malignant tumors, respiratory tract diseases, arthritis or rheumatism, gastric ulcers, liver diseases, cataracts, kidney diseases, gout, and spinal spurs. The use of medications for these chronic diseases was documented. The Tinetti balance assesses a wide spectrum of 13 maneuvers in everyday activities, including both static and dynamic balance skills. Scores on the Tinetti balance range 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating better balance control [30]. The 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) was employed to assess depressive symptoms, with a score exceeding 5 indicating the presence of depression [31]. Using a 6-m GAITRite electronic walkway (CIR Systems, Franklin, NJ, USA), gait velocity (cm/s) and cadence (steps/min) were assessed by averaging the results of two trials of usual walking pace over the walkway [32].

Follow-up assessments of dementia and disability

After the baseline assessment, the cognitive status and ADLs were monitored at annual follow-ups to ascertain incident dementia and incident disability. In this study, incident dementia was indicated by an MDRS score of < 126 [33]. ADLs were assessed by the Older Adults Resources and Services (OARS) ADL scale, which contains seven basic ADLs and seven instrumental ADLs [34], and each of the 14 ADL items was assigned a score of 2 (inability to perform the activity), 1 (the need for some assistance), or 0 points (no need of assistance). Incident disability was indicated by impairment on any ADL item.

Statistical analysis

CF measures and covariates at the baseline were compared between participants with incident dementia and those without and between participants with incident disability and those without. Continuous variables were assessed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and Student's t-test, while categorical variables were evaluated through Pearson's Chi-squared test. To evaluate the presence of any selection bias in the study, baseline characteristics of participants who completed the follow-ups were compared to those who did not complete them.

A multivariable binary logistic regression model was used to investigate independent associations of traditional CF, the CF phenotype, MCRS, and PCDS with incident dementia and incident disability after adjusting for covariates, for which adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented. In the beginning of the logistic regression analysis, associations of the four CF measures with incident dementia or incident disability were examined. Then, age and sex were adjusted due to their biological and clinical significance. Finally, in addition to age and sex, potential confounders were also adjusted for associations of the four CF measures with incident dementia or incident disability. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) vers. 25.0 for Windows (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) was used for all statistical analyses.

Results

In total, 755 older adults who were not suffering from dementia and a disability participated in the baseline assessment, among which 505 completed two annual follow-ups. Compared to participants who completed the two follow-ups, those who did not complete them were significantly more likely to have the CF phenotype (36.8% vs. 28.5%), the lowest monthly household income (54.4% vs. 47.3%), no alcohol consumption (92.0% vs. 86.5%), and lower balance scores (the mean: 23.0 vs. 23.3 points) (Supplementary Table 1).

Of those 505 participants, 57 (11.3%) developed dementia while 66 (13.1%) developed disability over the 2-year study period. Distributions of the four CF measures with regard to incident dementia and incident disability are presented in Table 1. Compared to the non-dementia group, participants with incident dementia exhibited a significantly higher proportion of traditional CF (14.0% vs. 6.9%), the CF phenotype (45.6% vs. 26.3%), MCRS (22.8% vs. 8.5%), and PCDS (38.6% vs. 15.2%). Compared to participants without disability, those with disability showed a significantly higher proportion of traditional CF (19.7% vs. 5.9%), the CF phenotype (54.5% vs. 25.6%), and MCRS (24.2% vs. 8.0%).

Table 1 Distributions of four cognitive-frailty (CF) measures of traditional CF, CF phenotype, motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCRS), and physio-cognitive decline syndrome (PCDS) with regard to incident dementia and incident disability during a 2-year study period
Full size table

Distributions of baseline characteristics with regard to incident dementia and incident disability are presented in Table 2. Compared to the non-dementia group, participants with incident dementia tended to be significantly older (mean age: 74.2 vs. 70.3 years) and female (45.6% vs. 68.3%), have a higher proportion of elementary school attainment or below (42.1% vs. 8.7%), a low monthly household income (59.6% vs. 45.8%), current smoking (10.5% vs. 3.3%), and depression (22.8% vs. 9.4%), and achieve lower scores on the Tinetti balance (means of 22.6 vs. 23.4 points), MDRS (means of 132.5 vs. 137.5 points), gait velocity (means of 103.4 vs. 113.7 cm/s), and gait cadence (means of 105.7 vs. 111.6 steps/min). Furthermore, compared to the non-disability group, participants with disability significantly tended to be older (mean ages of 72.3 vs. 70.5 years) and underweight (15.2% vs. 4.8%), have a higher proportion of low monthly household income (60.6% vs. 45.3%), physical inactivity (31.8% vs. 15.9%), ≥ 4 comorbidities (37.9% vs. 15.5%), and depression (18.2% vs. 9.8%), and achieve lower scores on the Tinetti balance (means of 22.3 vs. 23.4 points), gait velocity (means of 99.9 vs. 114.5 cm/s), and gait cadence (means of 106.9 vs. 111.5 steps/min).

Table 2 Distributions of baseline characteristics with regard to incident dementia and incident disability during a 2-year study period
Full size table

Distributions of baseline characteristics with regard to the four CF measures of traditional CF, the CF phenotype, MCRS, and PCDS are presented in Table 3. Among the four measures, significant differences were found in most of the baseline characteristics, including age, sex, educational level, monthly household income, BMI, regular exercise, the number of comorbidities, the number of medications, Tinetti balance, depression, gait velocity, and gait cadence, while significant differences in current smoking and alcohol drinking were also found.

Table 3 Distributions of baseline characteristics with regard to traditional cognitive-frailty (CF), CF phenotype, motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCRS) and physio-cognitive decline syndrome (PCDS) during a 2-year study period
Full size table

Table 4 presents results of the bivariable and multivariable logit regression analyses of CF measures for incident dementia. In the bivariable analysis, incident dementia was significantly associated with the CF phenotype (OR = 2.35; 95% CI, 1.34 ~ 4.12), MCRS (OR = 3.19; 95% CI, 1.58 ~ 6.43), and PCDS (OR = 3.51; 95% CI, 1.94 ~ 6.35), but was not significantly associated with traditional CF. In the multivariable analysis, after adjusting for the other three CF measures, incident dementia was significantly associated with PCDS (OR = 2.73; 95% CI, 1.41 ~ 5.28), but was not significantly associated with traditional CF, the CF phenotype, MCRS, or PCDS (model 1), and after adjusting for age and sex, the association of incident dementia and PCDS (OR = 2.54; 95% CI, 1.25 ~ 5.19) remained significant (model 2). After adjusting for age, sex, and education level, incident dementia was not significantly associated with any of the four CF measures.

Table 4 Results of the binary logit regression analysis of four cognitive-frailty (CF) measures with odd ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for incident dementia
Full size table

Table 5 presents results of the bivariable and multivariable logit regression analyses of the four CF measures for incident disability. In the bivariable analysis, incident disability was significantly associated with traditional CF (OR = 3.90; 95% CI, 1.89 ~ 8.04), the CF phenotype (OR = 3.68; 95% CI, 2.16 ~ 6.25), and MCRS (OR = 3.69; 95% CI, 1.91 ~ 7.15) but was not significantly with PCDS. In the multivariable analysis, after adjusting for the other three CF measures, incident disability was significantly association with the CF phenotype (OR = 2.86; 95% CI, 1.58 ~ 5.17) but was not significantly with traditional CF, MCRS, or PCDS (model 4). After adjusting for age and sex, the CF phenotype (OR = 2.90; 95% CI, 1.59 ~ 5.30) was still significantly associated with incident disability (model 5), and even after adjusting for more covariates (BMI, monthly household income, and number of comorbidities), this significant association (OR = 2.72; 95% CI, 1.45 ~ 5.11) remained (model 6).

Table 5 Results of the binary logit regression analysis of four cognitive-frailty (CF) measures with odd ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for incident disability
Full size table

Discussion

While a number of studies have explored the relationship between CF and the development of dementia and disability, there is a lack of research assessing differences and predictive capacities of alternative CF measures in the context of incident dementia and incident disability. Our study results indicated that among the four CF measures of traditional CF, the CF phenotype, MCRS, and PCDS, none was independently associated with incident dementia while only the CF phenotype was independently associated with incident disability.

Differences in identifying the number of cases among the four CF measures may have been partly attributable to variations in their composition of both physical and cognitive domains. Consistent with the low prevalence of CF reported by prior studies [15], the traditional CF in this study identified the smallest number of CF cases. Furthermore, similar to the result of a Chinese population-based study in which women accounted for 52.7% of CF cases [35] traditional CF exhibited a higher proportion of women (79.5%), compared to the other CF measures. The female-majority distribution in the traditional CF might be attributed to a higher prevalence of frailty usually occurring in women than men (e.g., 8.8% vs. 5.4% [36]), since women exhibit a greater susceptibility to rapid declines in resting energy expenditures for both skeletal muscle and total adipose tissues [37].

In this study, the CF phenotype, which expands the spectrum of the traditional CF by introducing RCF and PRCF, identified the largest number of CF cases among the four CF measures, yet it was still not independently associated with incident dementia. Since assessing SCD could be influenced by such factors as sex, stress, depressive symptoms, social culture, alcohol consumption, smoking, and educational level [38,39,40,41,42,43], the SCD diagnosis in RCF might lack specificity of CF identification which could reduce its statistical efficiency in examining the association between the CF phenotype and incident dementia. On the other hand, in this study, the CF phenotype exhibited a significant association with incident disability, aligning with findings from a Singaporean study that reported an increased risk of incident disability in individuals with RCF or PRCF in relation to those without CF [44]. It is known that the incidence rate of disability usually is notably higher in a frailty group compared to a cognitive impairment group (e.g., 45.4 vs. 21.3 per 1000 person-years [45]). Additionally, individuals indicated as being frail or in a pre-frail state often exhibited a greater likelihood of developing or worsening disability compared to the non-frail group (e.g., a relative risk of 1.66 [46]).

The PCDS was the only CF measure that could significantly predict incident dementia when the educational level was not controlled for. Several studies also identified the PCDS as a significant risk factor for dementia [12, 47]. While the PCDS assesses the cognitive domain through objective cognitive evaluation, targeting dysfunction in multiple cognitive domains, a study found that individuals with PCDS exhibited poor cognitive functions in working memory, verbal fluency, and processing speed [48]; however, the significant association of PCDS with incident dementia was no longer evident after adjusting for the educational level. It is known that higher education may provide a buffer against clinical expression of dementia, allowing individuals to better tolerate pathological changes associated with the condition [49]. In this study, a much higher proportion of older adults with an elementary education or below was identified by the PCDS, compared to the other three CF measures (36.7% vs. 7.9% ~ 18.8%); this observed difference in educational level could possibly be attributed to the disparity in the level of cognitive impairment assessed by the CF measures. For instance, the PCDS assesses cognitive impairment using a decline of at least 1.5 standard deviations below the mean across all five MDRS domains, thereby identifying poorer cognitive function, compared to the other three CF measures (means of MDRS scores: 132.7 vs. 134.7 and 135.8). As a consequence, older adults with the lowest level of education could have poorer cognitive performance, with more affected cognitive domains, accounting for the higher number of the participants in the PCDS group.

In this study, the prevalence of MCRS (10.1%) was consistent with previous findings [50], while it was notably lower than the prevalence of the CF phenotype or PCDS. The difference in prevalence rates may be attributed to the operational definition of MCRS. Unlike the traditional CF or CF phenotype that encompass five components of frailty criteria, the MCRS includes only one component (gait slowness) in assessing frailty. Relative to participants with other CF measures, those with MCRS were characterized by older ages and poorer gait velocities. It is well-known that there is an increasing prevalence of slow gait with advancing age [51], and gait velocity beyond the age of 70 years declines by approximately 15% in the usual walking pace and 20% in the fast walking pace [52].

There are some limitations to this study. First, as study participants were recruited from the outpatient department of a general hospital, they might not be fully representative of community-dwelling older individuals, and caution should be taken when generalizing the findings to healthier older adults with a lower prevalence of chronic diseases. Second, a substantial proportion of study participants did not complete the follow-up assessments and were more likely to be CF cases in this study. Due to differences existing in the operationalizations of the four CF measures, the loss to follow-up might have had differential impacts on the prevalence of case identification and the relationships of CF with incident dementia or incident disability across the four CF measures. Future studies might select a random sample of subjects lost to follow-up and intensively go after them to examine if the case identification and the relationships of CF measures with dementia/disability are affected by selecting factors such as household income, alcohol drinking, or balance ability. Third, the pathophysiology might differ among the four CF measures in relation to dementia, leading to variations in their predictive abilities of dementia and disability in this study. Fourth, normative data for MDRS may vary across different populations and thus the cognitive status of MCI or dementia defined by our MDRS cutoffs might not be valid, although, for example, the cutoff of 125 demonstrated both high sensitivity (85%) and high specificity (90%) for identifying dementia cases [33]. Fifth, Finally, it is important to note that the follow-up duration in this study was relatively short, and further studies with longer study periods are warranted to evaluate relationships of CF measures with dementia and disability. Specifically, the CF groups defined by the four CF measures may progress at different rates to dementia or disability. For example, due to a higher level of cognitive impairment, older people with PCDS, compared to those with RCF, could be more likely to progress towards dementia in a shorter period. Hence, the relationships of CF measures with dementia or disability at a longer study duration might considerably change.

Conclusions

Among the four CF measures of traditional CF, the CF phenotype, MCRS, and PCDS, the latter three may identify a higher number of CF cases than the traditional CF, thus enhancing their applicability in case identification and clinical interventions. Furthermore, all four CF measures may lack an independent association with incident dementia in a 2-year study period, and the CF phenotype may be a significant predictor of incident disability. Future studies with longer study periods are needed to validate our findings.

Data availability

Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files.

Abbreviations

AD:

Alzheimer's Disease

ADL:

Activity of daily living

ANOVA:

Analysis of Variance

BMI:

Body-mass index

CF:

Cognitive frailty

CIND:

Cognitive impairment without dementia

GDS:

Geriatric Depression Scale

MCI:

Mild cognitive impairment

MCRS:

Motoric cognitive risk syndrome

MDRS:

Mattis Dementia Rating Scale

NTD:

New Taiwan Dollar

OARS:

Older Adults Resources and Services

PCDS:

Physio-cognitive decline syndrome

PRCF:

Potentially reversible cognitive frailty

RCF:

Reversible cognitive frailty

SCD:

Subjective cognitive decline

SD:

Standard Deviation

SPSS:

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

References

  1. Kelaiditi E, Cesari M, Canevelli M, et al. Cognitive frailty: rational and definition from an (I.A.N.A./I.A.G.G.) International Consensus Group. J Nutr Health Aging. 2013;17:726–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Feng L, Zin Nyunt MS, Gao Q, Feng L, Yap KB, Ng TP. Cognitive frailty and adverse health outcomes: findings from the Singapore Longitudinal Ageing Studies (SLAS). J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(3):252–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fougere B, Daumas M, Lilamand M, et al. Association between frailty and cognitive impairment: cross-sectional data from Toulouse Frailty Day Hospital. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(11):990.e991-990.e995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bu Z, Huang A, Xue M, Li Q, Bai Y, Xu G. Cognitive frailty as a predictor of adverse outcomes among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Behav. 2021;11(1): e01926.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Solfrizzi V, Scafato E, Lozupone M, Seripa D, Giannini M, Sardone R, Bonfiglio C, Abbrescia DI, Galluzzo L, Gandin C, Baldereschi M, Di Carlo A, Inzitari D, Daniele A, Sabbà C, Logroscino G, Panza F, Italian Longitudinal Study on Aging Working Group. Additive role of a potentially reversible cognitive frailty model and inflammatory state on the risk of disability: the Italian Longitudinal Study on Aging. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2017;25(11):1236–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Solfrizzi V, Scafato E, Seripa D, Lozupone M, Imbimbo BP, D’amato A, et al. Reversible cognitive frailty, dementia, and all-cause mortality. The Italian longitudinal study on aging. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18:89.e1-89.e8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhao D, Li J, Fu P, et al. Cognitive frailty and suicidal ideation among Chinese rural empty-nest older adults: parent-child geographic proximity as a possible moderator? J Affect Disord. 2021;282:348–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen C, Park J, Wu C, et al. Cognitive frailty in relation to adverse health outcomes independent of multimorbidity: results from the China health and retirement longitudinal study. Aging (Albany NY). 2020;12(22):23129–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Shimada H, Makizako H, Lee S, et al. Impact of cognitive frailty on daily activities in older persons. J Nutr Health Aging. 2016;20(7):729–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shimada H, Makizako H, Tsutsumimoto K, Doi T, Lee S, Suzuki T. Cognitive frailty and incidence of dementia in older persons. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2018;5(1):42–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ngandu T, Lehtisalo J, Solomon A, et al. A 2 year multidomain intervention of diet, exercise, cognitive training, and vascular risk monitoring versus control to prevent cognitive decline in at-risk elderly people (FINGER): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385:2255–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lisko I, Kulmala J, Annetorp M, et al. How can dementia and disability be prevented in older adults: where are we today and where are we going? J Intern Med. 2021;289(6):807–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Merchant RA, Chen MZ, Tan LWL, Lim MY, Ho HK, van Dam RM. Singapore Healthy Older People Everyday (HOPE) study: prevalence of frailty and associated factors in older adults. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(8):734.e9-734.e14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Roppolo M, Mulasso A, Rabaglietti E. Cognitive frailty in Italian community-dwelling older adults: prevalence rate and its association with disability. J Nutr Health Aging. 2017;21(6):631–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sugimoto T, Sakurai T, Ono R, Kimura A, Saji N, Niida S, et al. Epidemiological and clinical significance of cognitive frailty: a mini review. Ageing Res Rev. 2018;44:1–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ruan Q, Yu Z, Chen M, Bao Z, Li J, He W. Cognitive frailty, a novel target for the prevention of elderly dependency. Ageing Res Rev. 2015;20:1–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen LK, Arai H. Physio-cognitive decline as the accelerated aging phenotype. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2020;88: 104051.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Liu LK, Chen CH, Lee WJ, Wu YH, Hwang AC, Lin MH, et al. Cognitive frailty and its association with all-cause mortality among community-dwelling older adults in taiwan: results from I-lan longitudinal aging study. Rejuvenation Res. 2018;21:510–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lin YC, Chung CP, Lee PL, et al. The flexibility of physio-cognitive decline syndrome: a longitudinal cohort study. Front Public Health. 2022;10: 820383.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Verghese J, Annweiler C, Ayers E, et al. Motoric cognitive risk syndrome: multicountry prevalence and dementia risk. Neurology. 2014;83(8):718–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Shen S, Zeng X, Xu L, et al. Association between motoric cognitive risk syndrome and frailty among older Chinese adults. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20(1):110.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Buracchio T, Dodge HH, Howieson D, Wasserman D, Kaye J. The trajectory of gait speed preceding mild cognitive impairment. Arch Neurol. 2010;67:980–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Ayers E, Verghese J. Gait dysfunction in motoric cognitive risk syndrome. J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;71(s1):S95–103.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Mattis S. Mental status examination for organic mental syndrome in the elderly patient. In: Bellack L, Karasu TE, editors. Geriatric psychiatry. New York: Grune & Stratton; 1976. p. 77–121.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Chan AS, Choi A, Chiu H, Lam L. Clinical validity of the Chinese version of Mattis Dementia Rating Scale in differentiating dementia of Alzheimer’s type in Hong Kong. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2003;9(1):45–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Green RC, Woodard JL, Green J. Validity of the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale for detection of cognitive impairment in the elderly. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1995;7(3):357–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, Cardiovascular Health Study Collaborative Research Group, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56(3):M146–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjöström M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(8):1381–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. WHO/IASO/IOTF. The Asia-Pacific perspective: redefining obesity and its treatment. Melbourne: Health Communication Australia; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tinetti ME. Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1986;34(2):119–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sheikh JI, Yesavage JA. Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS): Recent evidence and development of a shorter version. Clin Gerontol J Aging Mental Health. 1986;5(1–2):165–73.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bohannon RW. Comfortable and maximum walking speed of adults aged 20–79 years: reference values and determinants. Age Ageing. 1997;26(1):15–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Vangel SJ, Lichtenberg PQ. Mattis Dementia Rating Scale: clinical utility and relationship with demographic variables. Clin Neuropsycholog. 1995;9:209–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Fillenbaum GG, Smyer MA. The development, validity, and reliability of the OARS multidimensional functional assessment questionnaire. J Gerontol. 1981;36(4):428–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ma Y, Li X, Pan Y, et al. Cognitive frailty and falls in Chinese elderly people: a population-based longitudinal study. Eur J Neurol. 2021;28(2):381–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Geisler C, Braun W, Pourhassan M, et al. Gender-specific associations in age-related changes in Resting Energy Expenditure (REE) and MRI measured body composition in healthy caucasians. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016;71(7):941–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sharp ES, Gatz M. Relationship between education and dementia: an updated systematic review. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2011;25(4):289–304.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Roh M, Dan H, Kim O. Influencing factors of subjective cognitive impairment in middle-aged and older adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(21): 11488.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Röhr S, Pabst A, Riedel-Heller SG, et al. for Cohort Studies of Memory in an International Consortium (COSMIC). Estimating prevalence of subjective cognitive decline in and across international cohort studies of aging: a COSMIC study. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2020;12:167.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Burmester B, Leathem J, Merrick P. Subjective cognitive complaints and objective cognitive function in aging: a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent cross-sectional findings. Neuropsychol Rev. 2016;26:376–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Rodríguez D, Ayers E, Weiss EF, Verghese J. Cross-cultural comparisons of subjective cognitive complaints in a diverse primary care population. J Alzheimers Dis. 2021;81:545–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Tom SE, Hubbard RA, Crane PK, Haneuse SJ, et al. Characterization of dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease in an older population: updated incidence and life expectancy with and without dementia. Am J Pub Health. 2015;105:408–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Diaz-Orueta U, Blanco-Campal A, Burke T. Process-based approach neuropsychological assessment: review of the evidence and proposal for improvement of dementia screening tools. Rev Neurol. 2017;64(11):514–24.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Tsutsumimoto K, Doi T, Nakakubo S, et al. Cognitive frailty as a risk factor for incident disability during late life: a 24-month follow-up longitudinal study. J Nutr Health Aging. 2020;24:494–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Liu HX, Ding G, Yu WJ, et al. Association between frailty and incident risk of disability in community-dwelling elder people: evidence from a meta-analysis. Public Health. 2019;175:90–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Chung CP, Lee WJ, Peng LN, et al. Physio-cognitive decline syndrome as the phenotype and treatment target of unhealthy aging. J Nutr Health Aging. 2021;25(10):1179–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Malek Rivan NF, Shahar S, Rajab NF, Singh DKA, Din NC, Hazlina M, et al. Cognitive frailty among Malaysian older adults: baseline findings from the LRGS TUA cohort study. Clin Interv Aging. 2019;14:1343–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Meng X, D’Arcy C. Education and dementia in the context of the cognitive reserve hypothesis: a systematic review with meta-analyses and qualitative analyses. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(6): e38268.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Marquez I, Garcia-Cifuentes E, Velandia FR, et al. Motoric cognitive risk syndrome: prevalence and cognitive performance. A cross-sectional study. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2021;8:100162.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Stover E, Andrew S, Batesole J, Berntson M, Carling C, FitzSimmons S, Hoang T, Nauer J, McGrath R. Prevalence and trends of slow gait speed in the United States. Geriatrics. 2023;8(5): 95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Pau M, Mulas I, Putzu V, et al. Smoothness of gait in healthy and cognitively impaired individuals: a study on Italian elderly using wearable inertial sensor. Sensors. 2020;20(12): 3577.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Chung CP, Peng LN, Lee WJ, Wang PN, Lin CP, Chen LK. Cerebral small vessel disease is associated with concurrent physical and cognitive impairments at preclinical stage. Cereb Circ Cogn Behav. 2022;3: 100144.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study received financial support from the National Health Research Institutes (NHRI-EX112-10804PI), Taiwan, ROC.

Funding

This research project received financial support from the National Health Research Institutes (NHRI-EX112 - 10804PI), Taiwan, ROC.

National Health Research Institutes,NHRI-EX112 - 10804PI

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Injury Prevention and Control, College of Public Health, Taipei Medical University, 250 Wu-Hsing Street, Taipei, 11031, Taiwan, ROC

    Jui-Yuan Chung, Lalu Suprawesta & Mau-Roung Lin

  2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Cathay General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC

    Jui-Yuan Chung

  3. School of Medicine, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan, ROC

    Jui-Yuan Chung

  4. Department of Nursing, National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Sciences, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC

    Hei-Fen Hwang

  5. Department of Sport and Health Education, Faculty of Sport Science and Public Health, Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika, Mataram, West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia

    Lalu Suprawesta

  6. Programs in Medical Neuroscience, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC

    Mau-Roung Lin

Authors
  1. Jui-Yuan Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hei-Fen Hwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lalu Suprawesta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mau-Roung Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JYC and MRL designed the study. LS, JYC, and HFH searched the literature and collected data. LS and MRL analyzed the data. JYC wrote the manuscript draft. LS, HFH, and MRL revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mau-Roung Lin.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study underwent a thorough review and received approval from the Institutional Review Board of Taipei Medical University in Taipei, Taiwan, ROC. Prior to their participation, all individuals involved in the study provided informed consent. All procedures conducted in this research adhered to the guidelines outlined in the Helsinki Declaration.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chung, JY., Hwang, HF., Suprawesta, L. et al. Comparisons of four cognitive-frailty measures in predicting dementia and disability. BMC Geriatr 25, 245 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-025-05874-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-025-05874-0

Keywords

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

Contact us