Operationalizing Cognitive Frailty: A Systematic Review of Definitions, Tools, and Measurement Inconsistencies

Clicks: 4
ID: 338967
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #196 of 197 articles by views in the gerontologist

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 197 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cognitive frailty (CF), the co-occurrence of physical frailty and cognitive impairment without dementia, is a potentially reversible condition associated with adverse outcomes in older adults. However, heterogeneity in operational definitions and measurement approaches limits comparability and clinical translation. This review examined how CF has been defined and operationalized, including adaptations to established criteria. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO were searched for English-language studies published from 2013 through 2025. Eligible studies explicitly referred to CF in adults aged 50 years or older. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Definitions, assessment tools, thresholds, and operational criteria were synthesized descriptively. Fried Phenotype (FP) implementation was examined using an adaptation-equivalence typology classifying domain-level measurement and threshold deviations. RESULTS: Among 257 studies, 13 frailty and 26 cognitive assessment tools were identified. The FP was predominantly utilized (n = 164/257; 64%), although 68% (n = 112/164) modified the measurement method, threshold, or both in at least one domain. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) thresholds used to define cognitive impairment varied substantially, whereas all studies using the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) used a threshold of 0.5. Dementia was not explicitly excluded in 50 studies, despite its exclusion being a defining criterion of CF. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: CF remains operationally heterogeneous. Updated international consensus and minimum reporting standards are needed to clarify core criteria and acceptable adaptations. FP-based studies should explicitly report domain-level modifications to improve comparability, reproducibility, and evidence synthesis.
Reference Key
openalex_W7225343099 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors X. Tan, Shi Tongxin, Christian Anton Ng, Mark J. H. Lim, Christopher Chen
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal the gerontologist
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/geront/gnag252
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnag252
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.