IntroductionFrailty 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.MethodsThree 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionFIs 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.

BackgroundTrend analysis summarizes patterns over time in the data to show the direction of change and can be used to investigate uncertainties in different time points and associations with other factors. However, this approach is not widely applied to national surveys and only selected outcomes are investigated. This study demonstrates a research framework to conduct trend analysis for all variables in a national survey, the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS).Data and methodsThe CHMS cycle 1 to 4 was implemented between 2007 and 2015. The characteristics of all variables were screened and associated to the weight variables. Missing values were identified and cleaned according to the User Guide. The characteristics of all variables were extracted and used to guide data cleaning. Trend analysis examined the statistical significance of candidate predictors: the cycles, age, sex, education, household income and body mass index (BMI). R (v3.2) and RStudio (v0.98.113) were used to develop the framework.ResultsThere were 26557 variables in 79 data files from four cycles. There were 1055 variables significantly associated with the CHMS cycles and 2154 associated with the BMI after controlling for other predictors. The trend of blood pressure was similar to those published.ConclusionTrend analysis for all variables in the CHMS is feasible and is a systematic approach to understand the data. Because of trend analysis, we have detected data errors and identified several environmental biomarkers with extreme rates of change across cycles. The impact of these biomarkers has not been well studied by Statistics Canada or others. This framework can be extended to other surveys, especially the Canadian Community Health Survey.

Producing indices composed of multiple input variables has been embedded in some data processing and analytical methods. We aim to test the feasibility of creating data-driven indices by aggregating input variables according to principal component analysis (PCA) loadings. To validate the significance of both the theory-based and data-driven indices, we propose principles to review innovative indices. We generated weighted indices with the variables obtained in the first years of the two-year panels in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey initiated between 1996 and 2011. Variables were weighted according to PCA loadings and summed. The statistical significance and residual deviance of each index to predict mortality in the second years was extracted from the results of discrete-time survival analyses. There were 237,832 surviving the first years of panels, represented 4.5 billion civilians in the United States, of which 0.62% (95% CI = 0.58% to 0.66%) died in the second years of the panels. Of all 134,689 weighted indices, there were 40,803 significantly predicting mortality in the second years with or without the adjustment of age, sex and races. The significant indices in the both models could at most lead to 10,200 years of academic tenure for individual researchers publishing four indices per year or 618.2 years of publishing for journals with annual volume of 66 articles. In conclusion, if aggregating information based on PCA loadings, there can be a large number of significant innovative indices composing input variables of various predictive powers. To justify the large quantities of innovative indices, we propose a reporting and review framework for novel indices based on the objectives to create indices, variable weighting, related outcomes and database characteristics. The indices selected by this framework could lead to a new genre of publications focusing on meaningful aggregation of information.

ObjectivesComposite diagnostic criteria alone are likely to create and introduce biases into diagnoses that subsequently have poor relationships with input symptoms. This study aims to understand the relationships between the diagnoses and the input symptoms, as well as the magnitudes of biases created by diagnostic criteria and introduced into the diagnoses of mental illnesses with large disease burdens (major depressive episodes, dysthymic disorder, and manic episodes).SettingsGeneral psychiatric care.ParticipantsWithout real-world data available to the public, 100 000 subjects were simulated and the input symptoms were assigned based on the assumed prevalence rates (0.05, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 and 0.7) and correlations between symptoms (0, 0.1, 0.4, 0.7 and 0.9). The input symptoms were extracted from the diagnostic criteria. The diagnostic criteria were transformed into mathematical equations to demonstrate the sources of biases and convert the input symptoms into diagnoses.Primary and secondary outcomesThe relationships between the input symptoms and diagnoses were interpreted using forward stepwise linear regressions. Biases due to data censoring or categorisation introduced into the intermediate variables, and the three diagnoses were measured.ResultsThe prevalence rates of the diagnoses were lower than those of the input symptoms and proportional to the assumed prevalence rates and the correlations between the input symptoms. Certain input or bias variables consistently explained the diagnoses better than the others. Except for 0 correlations and 0.7 prevalence rates of the input symptoms for the diagnosis of dysthymic disorder, the input symptoms could not fully explain the diagnoses.ConclusionsThere are biases created due to composite diagnostic criteria and introduced into the diagnoses. The design of the diagnostic criteria determines the prevalence of the diagnoses and the relationships between the input symptoms, the diagnoses, and the biases. The importance of the input symptoms has been distorted largely by the diagnostic criteria.

Background There is a global trend of increasing use in prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. This hasn’t been verified in Canada. In addition, there are changes made to the collection method of medication information after the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) cycle 2. This study aims to review the potential impact of the changes in medication data collection and the trends in medication use if data quality remains similar throughout the CHMS cycles 1 to 4. This is fundamental for the analysis of this biomonitoring database. Methods The CHMS cycle 1 to 4 medication and household data were used to study the trends of medication use between 2007 and 2015. The use of prescription or OTC drugs was grouped based on the first levels of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) Classification system. The total numbers of medications were asked in all cycles. However, only a maximum of 15 and 5 drugs could be respectively reported for existing and new prescription or OTC drugs in cycles 1 and 2. There were no restrictions on drug reporting after cycle 2. The trends of medication use were described as ratios, compared to cycle 1. Results The total numbers of the types of medication ever identified decreased from 739 to 603 between cycles 1 and 4. The proportions of using any drugs were from 0.90 to 0.88 between cycles 1 and 4 (ratio = 1.08 in cycle 4, 95% CI = 0.89 to 1.26). The numbers of drugs in use were from 3.9 to 3.8 (ratio = 1.05 in cycle 4, 95% CI = 0.86 to 1.24). The proportions of prescription drug use were from 0.53 to 0.55 (ratio = 1.13 in cycle 4, 95% CI = 0.89 to 1.37), while the numbers of prescription were from 1.51 to 1.68 (ratio = 1.20 in cycle 4, 95% CI = 0.92 to 1.48). The use of diabetes and thyroid medication had trends similar to the respective disease prevalence. The use and the numbers of drugs for blood and blood forming organs significantly increased between cycles 1 and 4 (ratio = 1.56 in cycle 4, 95% CI = 1.03 to 2.10). Conclusions There is an increasing trend in the use of blood and blood forming agents through cycles 2 to 4 and cardiovascular drugs in cycle 3. For diabetes and thyroid medication, the proportions of medication use increase proportionally with disease prevalence. The changes in the medication information collection method may not have important impact on the reporting of the use of prescription or OTC drugs.