Evidence Hub

Biomarkers of Age-Related Frailty and Frailty Related to Diseases: An Exploratory, Cross-Sectional Analysis from the MAPT Study

D. Angioni, W.-H. Lu, S. Sourdet, T. Macaron, C. Takeda, S. Guyonnet, J. F. Mangin, Y. Rolland et al.

The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, 2022

1,199 participants · 25 citations

Abstract

Frailty may in most cases result from two main causes: the aging process (age-related frailty) and diseases (evolving chronic conditions or acute medical illnesses — disease-related frailty). The biological determinants characterizing these two main causes of frailty may be different. The aim of this study is to compare the biological and neuroimaging profile of people without frailty, those with age-related frailty, and subjects with disease-related frailty in community-dwelling older adults. We performed a secondary, cross-sectional analysis from the Multidomain Alzheimer Preventive Trial (MAPT). We included 1199 subjects without frailty throughout the 5-year follow-up, 82 subjects with incident age-related frailty, and 53 with incident disease-related frailty. Available blood biomarkers involved nutritional (eg, vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids), inflammatory-related (IL-6, TNFR1, GDF15), neurodegenerative (eg, beta-amyloid, neurofilament light chain) and neuroimaging markers (MRI, Amyloid-PET). Although not statistically significant, the results of the unadjusted model showed increasing gradients for inflammatory markers (GDF15, TNFR1) and decreasing gradients for nutritional and neuroimaging markers (omega 3 index, hippocampal volume) from age-related frailty participants to individuals with disease-related frailty. Considering the linear models we observed higher GDF15 values in disease-related frailty group compared to age-related frailty individuals [β = 242.8 (49.5,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 1,199 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free