Sarcopenia and frailty: An in-depth analysis of the pathophysiology and effect on liver transplant candidates

Table 2 Assessment methods for frailty

Method	Measurement	Description	Advantages	Disadvantages
Fried frailty phenotype	Five criteria (weight loss, exhaustion, weakness, slow walking speed, low activity)	Categorizes frailty as robust, pre-frail, or frail based on physical function	Simple, widely used, and validated	Requires physical performance testing; does not assess cognitive or social frailty
FI (rockwood model)	Score based on accumulation of health deficits (0-1)	Considers comorbidities, functional impairments, and cognitive decline	Comprehensive assessment of overall health status	Time-consuming; requires detailed clinical data
CFS	9-point scale (1: Very fit, 9: Terminally ill)	Visual tool assessing frailty severity based on clinical judgment	Quick and easy to use in hospital settings	Subjective; relies on clinician expertise
GFI	15-item questionnaire covering physical, cognitive, and social frailty	Self-reported tool for community-dwelling older adults	Easy to administer; non-invasive	May not detect early frailty signs; self-reported bias
EFS	10 domains, including cognition, mood, function, and nutrition	Multidimensional tool covering multiple frailty aspects	Covers both physical and cognitive factors	Requires trained personnel to administer

FI: Frailty index; CFS: Clinical frailty scale; GFI: Groningen frailty indicator; EFS: Edmonton frail scale.