Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Apr 24;18(4):e0283803. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283803

Association between oral frailty and cystatin C-related indices—A questionnaire (OFI-8) study in general internal medicine practice

Hiroshi Kusunoki 1,2,3,*, Kazumi Ekawa 1,4, Nozomi Kato 1, Keita Yamasaki 1,5, Masaharu Motone 1,6, Ken Shinmura 2, Fumiki Yoshihara 3, Hideo Shimizu 1
Editor: Masaki Mogi7
PMCID: PMC10124892  PMID: 37093792

Abstract

Background

Cystatin C-related indices such as the ratio of creatinine to cystatin C (Cr/CysC) and the ratio of estimated glomerular filtration rate by cystatin C (eGFRcys) to creatinine eGFRcre (eGFRcys/eGFRcre) levels have been shown to be associated with muscle mass and strength and can be markers of sarcopenia. Oral frailty is defined as an age-related gradual loss of oral functions, accompanied by a decline in cognitive and physical functions. It results in adverse health-related outcomes in older age, including mortality, physical frailty, functional disability, poor quality of life, and increased hospitalization and falls. Therefore, poor oral health among the elderly is an important health concern due to its association with the pathogenesis of systemic frailty, suggesting it to be a multidimensional geriatric syndrome. The Oral Frailty Index-8 (OFI-8) is a questionnaire that can be used for easy screening of oral frailty. This study aimed to investigate whether cystatin C- related indices are different between patients with low to moderate risk of oral frailty and those at high risk of oral frailty, using the OFI-8 in attending a general internal medicine outpatient clinic.

Materials and methods

This is a cross-sectional study that included 251 patients with a mean age of 77.7±6.6 years and a median age of 77 years (128 men: mean age, 77.1±7.3 years; median age, 77 years and 123 women: mean age, 78.4±5.7 years; median age, 78 years) attending general internal medicine outpatient clinics. OFI-8 scores were tabulated by gender to determine whether there were differences between patients at low to moderate risk of oral frailty (OFI-8 score ≤3 points) and those at high risk (OFI-8 score ≥4 points) in Cr/CysC, eGFRcys/eGFRcre levels, height, weight, grip strength, etc. were examined.

Results

The OFI-8 score was higher in women than in men, suggesting that oral frailty is more common in women. Cr/CysC, eGFRcys/eGFRcre and grip strength were significantly lower in both men and women in the high-risk group for oral frailty (OFI-8 score ≥ 4). Height, hemoglobin level, red blood cell count, and serum albumin levels were significantly lower in men with an OFI-8 score ≥4. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis also showed that Cr/CysC and eGFRcys/eGFRcre were significantly associated with an OFI-8 score≥4 in both men and women.

Conclusion

Cr/CysC and eGFRcys/eGFRcre were significantly lower in the high-risk group for oral frailty on the OFI-8in both men and women. A relationship exists among cystatin C-related indices, which can effectively screen systemic frailty. Similarly, the OFI-8 score can be used to effectively screen oral frailty. Thus, a collaboration that incorporates both systemic and oral frailty from medical and dental perspectives is required.

Introduction

Oral health is an essential aspect of health, life satisfaction, QoL, and self-perception. Impairment of oral function is highly common in older adults, and aging has been reported to indirectly interact with several frailty domains through multiple pathways. An overt example of this relationship is age-related functional oral deterioration, characterized by poor dental hygiene, inadequate dental prostheses, and dietary deficiencies, resulting in a high risk of nutritional frailty [1].

Oral frailty is defined as an age-related gradual loss of oral function, accompanied by a decline in cognitive and physical functions. It results in major adverse health-related outcomes in older age, including mortality, physical frailty, functional disability, loss of quality of life, and reduced hospitalization and falls [2].

Poor oral health among the elderly is an important health concern due to its association with the pathogenesis of systemic frailty, suggesting it to be a multidimensional geriatric syndrome. Therefore, oral frailty may be a risk factor for systemic frailty [3].

Traditionally, oral frailty, physical frailty, and sarcopenia have been treated individually from the medical and dental perspectives. In the past, the medical side has focused on elderly patients with advanced systemic frailty, such as those with progressive disease, such as heart failure and respiratory dysfunction, falls, and bone fractures, which may lead to the development of musculoskeletal disorders. By approaching and evaluating oral frailty from a medical perspective, a possibility exists for early detection of potential frailty, sarcopenia, and therapeutic intervention.

When oral frailty progresses to more apparent oral hypofunction, the Japan Dental Association recommends dentists to evaluate seven items: 1) oral hygiene, 2) oral dryness, 3) occlusal force, 4) tongue-lip motor function, 5) tongue pressure, 6) masticatory function, and 7) swallowing function [4]. However, these measurements require specialized training and specialized precision equipment in the dental office.

In addition to clinical examinations, questionnaires have been developed for screening for oral frailty. Tanaka et al. previously proposed an eight-item questionnaire, the Oral Frailty Index-8 (OFI-8), to facilitate the screening of older adults at risk for oral frailty in a community setting. The OFI-8 integrates oral health-related behaviors and associated indicators of oral frailty [5].

However, if an index that reflects oral function can be established using blood test data and physical measurement results obtained in daily medical care, it would be possible to easily detect patients at a high risk of oral frailty in medical practice and provide early dental intervention, thereby promoting medical-dental collaboration. We have previously reported the relationship between cystatin C (CysC), an indicator of renal function that, unlike creatinine (Cr), is not easily affected by muscle mass and sarcopenia in an epidemiological study at Hyogo Medical University [6, 7].

Several reports from Japan and abroad indicate that the ratio of creatinine to cystatin C (Cr/CysC) reflects muscle mass [820]. We and other groups have reported that the ratio of estimated glomerular filtration rate by cystatin C (eGFRcys) to creatinine eGFRcre (eGFRcys/eGFRcre) reflects muscle mass [6, 21]. eGFRcys is significantly associated with frailty and sarcopenia but not eGFRcre [2224]. We have additionally focused on the association between oral function and cystatin C and recently reported that eGFRcys and eGFRcys/eGFRcre are associated with low tongue pressure [25].

Therefore, in this study, we aimed to examine whether cystatin C-related indices (Cr/CysC and eGFRcys/eGFRcre), which have been shown to be significantly associated with muscle mass and muscle strength, are associated with decreased oral function assessed using the OFI-8. Additionally, we examined the association between oral dysfunction assessed using the OFI-8 and body size, grip strength, and other blood test indices.

Materials and methods

This was a cross-sectional study. All patients aged ≥ 65 years enrolled in this study were Japanese and provided informed consent to participate. We enrolled 251 patients with a mean age of 77.7±6.6 years and a median age of 77 years (128 men: mean age, 77.1±7.3 years; median age, 77 years and 123 women: mean age, 78.4±5.7 years; median age, 78 years) who were admitted to our institutions (Osaka Dental University and the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center) between April 2022 and December 2022.

In this study, blood tests including Cr and CysC, physical measurements (height and weight), grip strength measurements, and the OFI-8 questionnaire were conducted on a total of 251 outpatients at the Department of Internal Medicine, Osaka Dental University Hospital and the Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center. Oral assessments using the questionnaire were performed by five internal medicine outpatient physicians.

The results of the questionnaire were tabulated, and the participants were divided into two groups by sex: a low- to moderate-risk group for oral frailty (OFI-8 score≤3) and a high-risk group for oral frailty (OFI-8 score≥4). We analyzed the differences in blood data, physical parameters, and grip strength between these groups.

We measured the maximum grip strength using a grip strength tester (GRIP‐A; Takei Ltd., Niigata, Japan) [26]. We calculated eGFRcre and eGFRcys using equations from the Japanese Society of Nephrology [27, 28]. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was performed to confirm the diagnostic efficacy of Cr/CysC and eGFRcys/eGFRcre for OFI ≥4, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated.

The study protocol was approved by the ethics committees of our institutions (Osaka Dental University and National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center). All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee where the studies were conducted (IRB approval number 2022–25 at Osaka Dental University) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. All of the patients enrolled in this study were Japanese and gave informed consent to participate in this study.

Questionnaire

The Oral Frailty Index-8 (OFI-8) was used in this study. The questionnaire consists of eight items and is widely used in Japan.

  1. Do you have any difficulties eating tough foods compared 6 months ago? (Yes)

  2. Have you choked on your tea or soup recently? (Yes)

  3. Denture use (Yes)

  4. Do you often experience having a dry mouth? (Yes)

  5. Do you go out less frequently than you did last year? (Yes)

  6. Can you eat hard foods like squid jerky or pickled radish? (No)

  7. How many times do you brush your teeth per day? (<3 times/day)

  8. Have you visit dental clinic at least annually? (No)

Using the standard protocol, if subjects answered “yes” to Items 1, 2, or 3, two points were given for each answer. If the subjects answered “yes” to Items 4 and 5, one point was given for each answer. If the subjects answered “no” to Items 6, 7, or 8, one point was given for each answer. The maximum possible score was 11. The screening criterion was defined as the sum of the scores called OFI-8 scores. The higher the OFI-8 score, the higher the risk of oral frailty, that is, 0–2 points indicated low risk; 3 points, moderate risk; and greater than 4 points, high risk. In this study, all subjects were divided by sex, OFI-8 score ≤3 (low-to moderate-risk group), and OFI-8 score ≥4 (high-risk group), and the characteristics of each group were examined.

Statistical analysis

The results are expressed as the mean±standard deviation (SD) or percentage. For intergroup comparisons, Student’s t-test was used. Categorical variables are expressed as absolute (n) and relative frequency (%), and they were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test. ROC analysis was performed to confirm the diagnostic efficacy of Cr/CysC and eGFRcys/eGFRcre for OFI ≥4. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. The JMP 13.1 software was used for data analysis. Statistical significance was set at p <0.05.

Results

The baseline characteristics, indices of physical examination, blood examination results, and comorbidity frequencies of the participants are presented in Table 1. The mean age of both men and women was approximately 78 years. Body size and grip strength were naturally larger in men; thus, they showed higher Cr, reflecting muscle mass, and higher Cr/CysC, since CysC showed no difference with respect to sex. eGFRcys and eGFRcys/eGFRcre were also higher in men. Red blood cell count (RBC), hemoglobin (Hb), and hematocrit (Ht) were higher in men than in women, suggesting that women tend to be anemic. Additionally, complications such as dyslipidemia and osteoporosis tended to be higher in women.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics, physical examination indices, blood examination results, and comorbidity frequency of the participants.

Total (n = 251) Men (n = 128) Women (n = 123) p
Age (years) 77.7±6.6 77.1±7.3 78.4±5.7 0.131
Height (cm) 158.2±9.5 164.9±7.1 151.2±6.0 <0.001
Weight (kg) 58.8±11.5 65.2±9.5 52.0±9.2 <0.001
Body mass index: BMI 23.4±3.4 23.9±2.6 22.8±4.0 0.006
Grip strength (kg) 23.2±9.2 29.6±8.0 16.5±4.5 <0.001
Cr (mg/dL) 0.95±0.35 1.06±0.34 0.84±0.32 <0.001
CysC (g/dL) 1.26±0.42 1.26±0.39 1.26±0.45 0.987
Cr/CysC 0.77±0.17 0.86±0.15 0.68±0.13 <0.001
eGFRcre (mL/min/1.73 m 2 ) 56.3±16.0 57.3±16.3 55.3±15.6 0.320
eGFRcys (mL/min/1.73 m 2 ) 55.8±18.0 57.6±17.6 53.9±18.3 0.103
eGFRcys/eGFRcre 1.00±0.22 1.02±0.22 0.98±0.22 0.171
Red blood cells (×10 4 /μL) 423±52 435±52 410±50 <0.001
Hemoglobin (g/dL) 13.2±1.5 13.8±1.4 12.7±1.4 <0.001
Hematocrit (%) 39.6±4.3 41.0±4.1 38.3±4.1 <0.001
Total protein (g/dL) 7.1±0.5 7.1±0.5 7.2±0.5 0.094
Albumin (g/dL) 4.2±0.3 4.2±0.3 4.2±0.3 0.561
Hypertension, n(%) 225(89.6) 116(90.6) 109(88.6) 0.681
Diabetes, n(%) 50(19.9) 29(22.7) 21(17.1) 0.343
Dyslipidemia, n(%) 141(56.2) 64(50.0) 77(62.6) 0.056
Osteoporosis, n(%) 27(10.8) 3(2.3) 24(19.5) <0.001
Malignant neoplasm, n(%) 8(3.2) 5(3.9) 3(2.4) 0.723
Cardiovascular disease, n(%) 62(24.7) 34(26.6) 28(22.8) 0.559
Cerebrovascular disease, n(%) 24(9.6) 12(9.4) 12(9.8) 1.000

Data are expressed as mean ± SD.

The results of the OFI-8 are presented in Table 2. The overall score was significantly higher for women, with low- to moderate-risk scores of 3 or less tending to be higher in men and high-risk scores of 4 or more tending to be higher in women, suggesting that oral frailty is more common in women. Looking at each question, women were more likely to have difficulties eating tough foods compared to 6 months ago, choke on tea or soup, use dentures, and go out less frequently than they did half a year ago. Men and women were almost equally likely to suffer from dry mouth and visit dental clinics. Men tended to have better oral function with respect to the other items; however, the differences were not significant.

Table 2. Results of the OFI-8 questionnaire.

Total (n = 251) Men (n = 128) Women (n = 123) p
OFI-8 score 3.3±2.1 2.8±2.0 3.8±2.0 <0.001
OFI-8 score≧4, n(%) 97(38.6) 37(28.9) 60(48.8) 0.002
1) Do you have any difficulties eating tough foods compared 6 months ago? (Yes) 46(18.3) 17(13.3) 29(23.6) 0.049
2) Have you choked on your tea or soup recently? (Yes) 75(29.9) 28(21.9) 47(38.2) 0.006
3) Denture use (Yes) 144(57.4) 65(50.8) 79(64.2) 0.041
4) Do you often experience having a dry mouth? (Yes) 76(30.3) 36(28.1) 40(32.5) 0.493
5) Do you go out less frequently than you did last year? (Yes) 99(39.4) 41(32.0) 58(47.2) 0.020
6) Can you eat hard foods like squid jerky or pickled radish? (No) 29(11.6) 11(8.6) 18(14.6) 0.167
7) How many times do you brush your teeth per day? (<3 times/day) 47(18.7) 28(21.9) 19(15.5) 0.200
8) Have you visit dental clinic at least annually? (No) 42(16.7) 22(17.2) 20(16.3) 0.867

Data are expressed as mean ± SD.

The distribution of the OFI-8 scores is shown in Fig 1. The mean score was higher in women; therefore, the peaks of the distribution were also higher in women. The participants were divided into two groups according to their OFI score: low- to moderate-risk (≤3 points) and high risk (≥4 points) (Table 3). The average value of each parameter is presented. In men, the height, grip strength, Cr/CysC, eGFRcys/eGFRcre, red blood cell count, hemoglobin level, and albumin level were significantly lower in the high-risk group. In women, grip strength, Cr/CysC, and eGFRcys/eGFRcre were significantly lower in the high-risk group. Therefore, a significant difference was observed in grip strength, Cr/CysC and eGFRcys/eGFRcre between men and women. According to the ROC analysis, although the AUC was lower, Cr/CysC and eGFRcys/eGFRcre were significantly associated with a high risk of OFI-8 ≥ 4 points in both men and women (Fig 2).

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Distribution of OFI-8 scores in men (A) and women (B).

Table 3. Characteristics of participants with and without OFI-8 scores of ≥4.

Men Women
OFI-8 score≦3 (n = 91) OFI-8 score≧4 (n = 37) p OFI-8 score≦3 (n = 63) OFI-8 score≧4 (n = 60) p
Age (years) 76.4±7.4 79.0±6.8 0.064 77.7±6.1 79.1±5.2 0.173
Height (cm) 165.8±6.9 162.5±7.3 0.018 152.1±5.7 150.4±6.1 0.115
Weight (kg) 66.1±9.3 63.1±9.8 0.107 52.1±9.1 52.0±9.5 0.949
Body mass index: BMI 24.0±2.6 23.8±2.6 0.673 22.6±4.1 23.0±3.8 0.574
Grip strength (kg) 30.7±7.6 27.0±8.5 0.018 17.7±4.5 15.3±4.2 0.002
Cr (mg/dL) 1.06±0.33 1.07±0.36 0.824 0.82±0.20 0.85±0.41 0.674
CysC (g/dL) 1.23±0.38 1.33±0.40 0.182 1.20±0.35 1.31±0.53 0.154
Cr/CysC 0.87±0.15 0.81±0.15 0.042 0.70±0.13 0.65±0.13 0.022
eGFRcre (mL/min/1.73 m 2 ) 57.4±15.3 57.0±18.7 0.910 54.3±13.8 56.3±17.4 0.471
eGFRcys (mL/min/1.73 m 2 ) 59.3±18.0 53.3±16.2 0.078 55.7±17.9 52.0±18.6 0.260
eGFRcys/eGFRcre 1.04±0.21 0.95±0.20 0.031 1.03±0.22 0.93±0.21 0.012
Red blood cell (×10 4 /μL) 443±50 418±53 0.015 410±48 409±52 0.882
Hemoglobin (g/dL) 13.9±1.3 13.4±1.4 0.036 12.7±1.3 12.6±1.5 0.851
Hematocrit (%) 41.3±4.1 40.0±4.1 0.105 38.3±3.8 38.2±4.4 0.861
Total protein (g/dL) 7.1±0.4 7.1±0.4 0.904 7.1±0.4 7.2±0.5 0.870
Albumin (g/dL) 4.2±0.3 4.0±0.3 <0.001 4.2±0.2 4.1±0.3 0.271
Hypertension, n(%) 80(87.9) 36(97.3) 0.178 58(92.1) 51(85.0) 0.264
Diabetes, n(%) 21(23.1) 8(21.6) 1.000 8(12.7) 13(21.7) 0.233
Dyslipidemia, n(%) 41(45.1) 23(62.2) 0.118 41(65.1) 36(60.0) 0.581
Osteoporosis, n(%) 3(3.3) 0(0.0) 0.556 10(15.9) 14(23.3) 0.365
Malignant neoplasm, n(%) 3(3.3) 2(5.4) 0.626 1(1.6) 2(3.3) 0.613
Cardiovascular disease, n(%) 20(22.0) 14(37.8) 0.079 14(22.2) 14(23.3) 1.000
Cerebrovascular disease, n(%) 10(11.0) 2(5.4) 0.507 6(9.5) 6(10.0) 1.000

Data are expressed as mean ± SD.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

ROC and AUC of Cr/CysC (A) and eGFRcys/eGFRcre (B) for OFI-8≥4 in men. ROC and AUC of Cr/CysC (C) and eGFRcys/eGFRcre (D) for OFI-8≥4 in women. ROC, receiver operating characteristic curves. AUC, area under the curve.

Discussion

Oral frailty is defined as a mild decline in oral functions during the early and reversible stages of frailty. Many community-dwelling older people have reduced oral function or oral hypofunction, which is significantly associated with frailty and aging. Appropriate evaluation of oral function and effective intervention to suppress oral function deterioration may be effective in extending the healthy life expectancy of older people [29].

Frailty, in contrast, is considered a state of increased vulnerability to disease onset and physical dysfunction due to a decline in several functions associated with aging. Sarcopenia, a state of reduced muscle mass, is a typical physical frailty phenotype. Cystatin C is a strong predictor of organ-specific outcomes such as cardiovascular events, life outcomes [30], and renal outcomes [31]. One advantage of CysC over creatinine, which is also a marker of renal function, is that cystatin C is less affected by muscle mass.

As muscle mass decreases, Cr decreases relative to CysC, which is less affected by muscle mass. Therefore, cystatin C-related indices, such as Cr/CysC and eGFRcys/eGFRcre, decrease. Therefore, cystatin C-related indices have been demonstrated to be lower in physically frail individuals. In this study, we showed that cystatin C-related indices are also lower in high-risk states of oral frailty, a phenotype of physical frailty.

Frailty can be considered primary/pre-clinical when not directly associated with a specific disease and without significant functional disability. Therefore, frailty phenotypes (for example, oral frailty) could better define primary frailty and potentially be applied to a pre-clinical context, tailoring specific treatments and/or prevention strategies. Early intervention in frail older adults is important for improving clinical outcomes and reducing medical care. Many efforts have been made to develop subjective and objective tools for the early recognition of frailty and measuring its severity [3234].

Tanaka et al. reported that oral frailty is a significant risk factor for physical frailty, sarcopenia, nursing care needs, and total mortality and that the prognosis for life is also poor [3]. In 2018, the Japanese Society of Gerontology established criteria for assessing oral hypofunction using seven oral functions. The Japan Dental Association considers oral hypofunction to be a preliminary step in oral frailty, and the seven items listed here are used for objectively evaluating 1) oral hygiene, 2) oral dryness, 3) occlusal force, 4) tongue-lip motor function, 5) tongue pressure, 6) masticatory function, and 7) swallowing function, all of which require specialized dental equipment [4]. Therefore, an objective evaluation at the stage of oral frailty is difficult.

Therefore, simple and easy questionnaires, such as the Oral frailty index-8 (OFI-8), are very useful for early detection and treatment of oral frailty. Tanaka et al. have developed an oral frailty checklist using the OFI-8, an 8-item questionnaire [5]. Any difficulties eating tough foods compared to 6 months ago indicate a decline in chewing ability. Swallowing ability is indicated by difficulty in swallowing tea and soup; dry mouth, by xerostomia; going out less frequently, by decreased social participation; and the ability to chew foods as hard as squid jerky or pickled radish, by decreased masticatory ability. Tooth brushing and dental check-ups indicate oral hygiene-related behaviors.

In addition to the OFI-8, other questionnaires to assess oral frailty have been developed [35, 36]. Among them, the OFI-8 can be performed quickly and easily in a general medicine outpatient setting, and it does not require specialized skills, making it useful in screening for oral hypofunction. The OFI-8 has been proven to reflect oral function assessed objectively by oral examinations conducted by trained dental staff. The use of OFI-8 might support dental care practitioners in efficiently cooperating with communities and primary care providers, and consequently help prolong healthy life expectancy and improve overall health by benefiting nutrition. Previous studies on the OFI-8 have focused on its use in epidemiological studies; however, this study shows that the OFI-8 can be easily used in a general internal medicine practice setting for assessing the risk of oral frailty.

Previous reports have shown that oral frailty is more common in women than in men; the overall prevalence of oral hypofunction has been reported to be 50.5%, with 40.3% in men and 54.9% in women. This result shows a trend similar to that observed for sarcopenia. The prevalence of sarcopenia was 18.6% overall, 9.7% in men, and 22.5% in women [37]. In another study, the prevalence of oral frailty was 35.8% in men, and 64.2% in women [38]. Additionally, the prevalence of systemic frailty has been reported to be higher in women than in men [39, 40]. These reports indicate that oral frailty, as well as systemic frailty, is more common in women than in men. The higher prevalence of the frailty in women may be because women have lower muscle mass and muscle strength than men. In the present study, participants at high risk of oral frailty (OFI-8≥4) were more likely to be women. This result is consistent with the previous reports described above.

In the present study, we divided the patients into two groups: low- to moderate-risk (up to 3 points) and high-risk (above 4 points) groups and examined whether there was a difference in the clinical indices. A score of ≥4 points indicates the necessity of a dental checkup, as older adults with these scores are at high risk of new-onset oral frailty and new long-term care needs certification.

In this study, grip strength and Cr/CysC and eGFRcys/eGFRcre were significantly lower in the high-risk oral frailty group (OFI-8≥4) in both men and women. This suggests that among the blood test indices, cystatin C-related indices such as Cr/CysC and eGFRcys/eGFRcre are the most versatile index related to oral frailty. In contrast, in men, RBC and Hb levels were significantly lower in the high-risk oral frailty group (OFI-8≥4). These results suggest that anemia may be significantly related to oral frailty in men as well. According to our previous reports, indices of anemia (RBC, hemoglobin, and hematocrit) exhibited a mild positive correlation with skeletal muscle mass index [41]. These results support a previous report, according to which anemia was associated with lower muscle strength and physical performance [42].

In men, albumin levels were also significantly lower in the high-risk oral frailty group (OFI-8≥4). Albumin level is an important indicator of nutritional status. Many reports have been published on the relationship between oral frailty and malnutrition. Older adults with multiple oral health problems have an increased risk of deterioration of nutritional status [34]. Malnutrition is associated with increased risks of frailty, sarcopenia, morbidity, and mortality [4346]. Oral hypofunction is significantly and independently associated with protein intake in both men and women [47]. Community-dwelling older adults with oral frailty had an increased risk of deteriorating nutritional status, as evaluated using the Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form (MNA-SF) [38]. Nomura et al. reported that oral health evaluated using the OFI-8 correlated with nutritional intake. The frequency of the items on the OFI-8 was similar to that in previous reports [48].

Grip strength was significantly lower in both men and women with OFI-8≥4. Base muscle mass and strength are lower in women than in men, and oral frailty may lead to muscle weakness even before progression of anemia and malnutrition in women.

There exists certain confusion and overlap between the concepts of physical and oral frailty. In addition, there exists an overlap among the diagnostic indicators. The OFI-8 index includes the question, "Do you have any difficulties eating tough foods compared to 6 months ago?", “Have you choked on your tea or soup recently?” and “Do you often experience having a dry mouth?” The same questions exist in the Kihon checklist, which was designed to screen for systemic frailty [49]. It is supposed that oral frailty, which is handled by dentistry, and physical frailty/sarcopenia, which is handled by medicine, overlap in some areas and form a vicious cycle that influences each other. We suppose that this vicious cycle can be inhibited by using dental approaches such as oral care, oral rehabilitation, and prosthetics for oral frailty; medical approaches such as medication and physical rehabilitation for physical frailty and sarcopenia; and a combination of both approaches (Fig 3). Thus, we would like to propose a bidirectional approach from both medical and dental perspectives.

Fig 3. Image of OFI-8 and cystatin C-related indices in medical-dental cooperation.

Fig 3

For simple screening, the OFI-8 can be used for oral frailty and cystatin C-related indices such as Cr/CysC and eGFRcys/eGFRcre for physical frailty/sarcopenia; the present study shows that they are significantly associated with each other.

Recently, Kugimiya et al. reported that multiple aspects of oral functions including occlusal force, tongue-lip motor function, tongue pressure, masticatory function, and swallowing function were low among community-dwelling older adults with sarcopenia [50]. The group with a high OFI score and at high risk for oral frailty was found to have low grip strength, low muscle strength, and muscle mass, as reflected by the low values of cystatin C-related indices in the high-risk oral frailty group.

Low cystatin C-related indices suggest low skeletal muscle mass and a high risk of oral frailty. This finding suggests that low cystatin C-related indices are associated with low skeletal muscle mass and a high risk of oral frailty. If cystatin C-related indices assessed in the medical practice setting are low, it is recommended that oral frailty risk be assessed using the OFI-8 questionnaire. Moreover, if necessary, a precise oral function evaluation by a dentist should be recommended. The present study also demonstrated that hemoglobin and albumin levels were low in the group identified as having a high risk of oral frailty by the OFI-8 index. These patients may have potential systemic diseases such as anemia and malnutrition.

This study reported an association between cystatin C-related indices and OFI-8 scores. A low cystatin C-related index is associated with a high risk of sarcopenia and oral frailty from a medical perspective, whereas a high OFI-8 score recommends a precise evaluation of oral functions from a dental perspective. Furthermore, this finding indicates the presence of sarcopenia, systemic frailty, or systemic diseases.

Limitations

Our study has limitations that must be considered. First, this was a cross-sectional study, and we could not determine any cause-and-effect relationships. A follow-up prospective study is needed for assessing the causal associations between OFI-8 and cystatin C-related indices.

Because this study did not objectively assess oral function using the seven items specified by the Japan Dental Association, the exact oral function of those judged to be at high risk with an OFI-8 score ≥4 is unknown. This is another limitation of this study. However, the purpose of this study was to determine whether an association exists between oral function assessed by a questionnaire and objective clinical indicators related to cystatin C, without the use of professional dental skills and equipment. Therefore, we do not believe that evaluation of oral function using specialized instruments and skills is necessary.

Next, there is room for improvement in the OFI-8. Nomura et al. reported that the following items of OFI-8 had low discrimination ability: "Brushing teeth at least twice a day," "Regular attendance of dental clinic," and "Using dentures." Therefore, they concluded that the OFI-8 scoring system needs to be improved [51].

Finally, we recruited only a small population sample from two medical institutes. This limits the reliability and validity of these tests.

Conclusion

In conclusion, cystatin C-related indices were significantly lower in the group at high risk for oral frailty, identified using the OFI-8. Conventionally, cystatin C-related indices have been considered effective in screening systemic frailty and sarcopenia, whereas the OFI-8 index is considered effective in screening oral frailty. The present study demonstrated a relationship between the indices considered effective for screening both systemic and oral frailty, which have conventionally been evaluated separately from medical and dental perspectives. It is important to promote medical-dental collaboration by approaching systemic and oral frailty from both medical and dental perspectives.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the medical staff of Osaka Dental University and the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center who supported this study. We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.

Data Availability

Data cannot be released because it contains personal patient information. Researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data may obtain the data via the Clinical Trials Committee. The name of the institution limiting this data is the IRB of Osaka Dental University. If you would like to access the data, please contact us by phone (+81-72-864-3111) or online (https://www.osaka-dent.ac.jp/access.html).

Funding Statement

This study was supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI (grant number: 19K16995 [2019-2022]), awarded to HK.

References

  • 1.Dibello V, Zupo R, Sardone R, Lozupone M, Castellana F, Dibello A, et al. Oral frailty and its determinants in older age: a systematic review. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2021;2(8):e507–e20. doi: 10.1016/S2666-7568(21)00143-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Dibello V, Lobbezoo F, Lozupone M, Sardone R, Ballini A, Berardino G, et al. Oral frailty indicators to target major adverse health-related outcomes in older age: a systematic review. Geroscience. 2023;45(2):663–706. doi: 10.1007/s11357-022-00663-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Tanaka T, Takahashi K, Hirano H, Kikutani T, Watanabe Y, Ohara Y, et al. Oral Frailty as a Risk Factor for Physical Frailty and Mortality in Community-Dwelling Elderly. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2018;73(12):1661–7. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glx225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Minakuchi S, Tsuga K, Ikebe K, Ueda T, Tamura F, Nagao K, et al. Oral hypofunction in the older population: Position paper of the Japanese Society of Gerodontology in 2016. Gerodontology. 2018;35(4):317–24. doi: 10.1111/ger.12347 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tanaka T, Hirano H, Ohara Y, Nishimoto M, Iijima K. Oral Frailty Index-8 in the risk assessment of new-onset oral frailty and functional disability among community-dwelling older adults. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2021;94:104340. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2021.104340 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kusunoki H, Tsuji S, Kusukawa T, Wada Y, Tamaki K, Nagai K, et al. Relationships between cystatin C- and creatinine-based eGFR in Japanese rural community- dwelling older adults with sarcopenia. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2020. doi: 10.1007/s10157-020-01981-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kusunoki H, Tabara Y, Tsuji S, Wada Y, Tamaki K, Nagai K, et al. Estimation of Muscle Mass Using Creatinine/Cystatin C Ratio in Japanese Community-Dwelling Older People. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2021.07.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Amado CA, García-Unzueta MT, Lavin BA, Guerra AR, Agüero J, Ramos L, et al. The Ratio Serum Creatinine/Serum Cystatin C (a Surrogate Marker of Muscle Mass) as a Predictor of Hospitalization in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Outpatients. Respiration. 2019;97(4):302–9. doi: 10.1159/000494296 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Barreto EF, Poyant JO, Coville HH, Dierkhising RA, Kennedy CC, Gajic O, et al. Validation of the sarcopenia index to assess muscle mass in the critically ill: A novel application of kidney function markers. Clin Nutr. 2019;38(3):1362–7. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2018.05.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Fu X, Tian Z, Wen S, Sun H, Thapa S, Xiong H, et al. A new index based on serum creatinine and cystatin C is useful for assessing sarcopenia in patients with advanced cancer. Nutrition. 2021;82:111032. doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2020.111032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.He Q, Jiang J, Xie L, Zhang L, Yang M. A sarcopenia index based on serum creatinine and cystatin C cannot accurately detect either low muscle mass or sarcopenia in urban community-dwelling older people. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):11534. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-29808-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hirai K, Tanaka A, Homma T, Goto Y, Akimoto K, Uno T, et al. Serum creatinine/cystatin C ratio as a surrogate marker for sarcopenia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clin Nutr. 2021;40(3):1274–80. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2020.08.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ichikawa T, Miyaaki H, Miuma S, Motoyoshi Y, Yamashima M, Yamamichi S, et al. Indices calculated by serum creatinine and cystatin C as predictors of liver damage, muscle strength and sarcopenia in liver disease. Biomed Rep. 2020;12(3):89–98. doi: 10.3892/br.2020.1273 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kashani KB, Frazee EN, Kukrálová L, Sarvottam K, Herasevich V, Young PM, et al. Evaluating Muscle Mass by Using Markers of Kidney Function: Development of the Sarcopenia Index. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(1):e23–e9. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kashani K, Sarvottam K, Pereira NL, Barreto EF, Kennedy CC. The sarcopenia index: A novel measure of muscle mass in lung transplant candidates. Clin Transplant. 2018;32(3):e13182. doi: 10.1111/ctr.13182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lin YL, Chen SY, Lai YH, Wang CH, Kuo CH, Liou HH, et al. Serum creatinine to cystatin C ratio predicts skeletal muscle mass and strength in patients with non-dialysis chronic kidney disease. Clin Nutr. 2020;39(8):2435–41. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2019.10.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tabara Y, Kohara K, Okada Y, Ohyagi Y, Igase M. Creatinine-to-cystatin C ratio as a marker of skeletal muscle mass in older adults: J-SHIPP study. Clin Nutr. 2020;39(6):1857–62. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2019.07.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Suzuki K, Furuse H, Tsuda T, Masaki Y, Okazawa S, Kambara K, et al. Utility of creatinine/cystatin C ratio as a predictive marker for adverse effects of chemotherapy in lung cancer: A retrospective study. J Int Med Res. 2015;43(4):573–82. doi: 10.1177/0300060515579116 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ulmann G, Kaï J, Durand JP, Neveux N, Jouinot A, De Bandt JP, et al. Creatinine-to-cystatin C ratio and bioelectrical impedance analysis for the assessement of low lean body mass in cancer patients: Comparison to L3-computed tomography scan. Nutrition. 2021;81:110895. doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2020.110895 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Yanishi M, Kinoshita H, Tsukaguchi H, Kimura Y, Koito Y, Sugi M, et al. The creatinine/cystatin C ratio provides effective evaluation of muscle mass in kidney transplant recipients. Int Urol Nephrol. 2019;51(1):79–83. doi: 10.1007/s11255-018-2015-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Yoshida S, Nakayama Y, Nakayama J, Chijiiwa N, Ogawa T. Assessment of sarcopenia and malnutrition using estimated GFR ratio (eGFRcys/eGFR) in hospitalised adult patients. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2022;48:456–63. doi: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2021.12.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Dalrymple LS, Katz R, Rifkin DE, Siscovick D, Newman AB, Fried LF, et al. Kidney function and prevalent and incident frailty. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013;8(12):2091–9. doi: 10.2215/CJN.02870313 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hart A, Paudel ML, Taylor BC, Ishani A, Orwoll ES, Cawthon PM, et al. Cystatin C and frailty in older men. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013;61(9):1530–6. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12413 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hart A, Blackwell TL, Paudel ML, Taylor BC, Orwoll ES, Cawthon PM, et al. Cystatin C and the Risk of Frailty and Mortality in Older Men. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2017;72(7):965–70. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glw223 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kusunoki H, Hasegawa Y, Tsuji S, Wada Y, Tamaki K, Nagai K, et al. Relationships between cystatin C and creatinine-based eGFR with low tongue pressure in Japanese rural community-dwelling older adults. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2022;8(5):1259–69. doi: 10.1002/cre2.619 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Nagai K, Tamaki K, Kusunoki H, Wada Y, Tsuji S, Itoh M, et al. Physical frailty predicts the development of social frailty: a prospective cohort study. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20(1):403. doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-01814-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Horio M, Imai E, Yasuda Y, Watanabe T, Matsuo S, GFR CDtJEfE. GFR estimation using standardized serum cystatin C in Japan. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61(2):197–203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Matsuo S, Imai E, Horio M, Yasuda Y, Tomita K, Nitta K, et al. Revised equations for estimated GFR from serum creatinine in Japan. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009;53(6):982–92. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.12.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Shimazaki Y, Nonoyama T, Tsushita K, Arai H, Matsushita K, Uchibori N. Oral hypofunction and its association with frailty in community-dwelling older people. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2020;20(10):917–26. doi: 10.1111/ggi.14015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Shlipak MG, Sarnak MJ, Katz R, Fried LF, Seliger SL, Newman AB, et al. Cystatin C and the risk of death and cardiovascular events among elderly persons. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(20):2049–60. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa043161 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Shlipak MG, Matsushita K, Ärnlöv J, Inker LA, Katz R, Polkinghorne KR, et al. Cystatin C versus creatinine in determining risk based on kidney function. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(10):932–43. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1214234 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Pedone C, Costanzo L, Cesari M, Bandinelli S, Ferrucci L, Antonelli Incalzi R. Are Performance Measures Necessary to Predict Loss of Independence in Elderly People? J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016;71(1):84–9. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glv096 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Tôrres LH, Tellez M, Hilgert JB, Hugo FN, de Sousa MD, Ismail AI. Frailty, Frailty Components, and Oral Health: A Systematic Review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(12):2555–62. doi: 10.1111/jgs.13826 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Sewo Sampaio PY, Sampaio RA, Yamada M, Arai H. Systematic review of the Kihon Checklist: Is it a reliable assessment of frailty? Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2016;16(8):893–902. doi: 10.1111/ggi.12833 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Choi JH, Kang JH, Koh SB, Kim NH, Kho HS. Development of an Oral and Maxillofacial Frailty Index: A preliminary study. J Oral Rehabil. 2020;47(2):187–95. doi: 10.1111/joor.12890 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hakeem FF, Bernabé E, Sabbah W. Self-rated oral health and frailty index among older Americans. Gerodontology. 2021;38(2):185–90. doi: 10.1111/ger.12513 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kugimiya Y, Iwasaki M, Ohara Y, Motokawa K, Edahiro A, Shirobe M, et al. Relationship between Oral Hypofunction and Sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: The Otassha Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(12). doi: 10.3390/ijerph18126666 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Iwasaki M, Motokawa K, Watanabe Y, Shirobe M, Inagaki H, Edahiro A, et al. A Two-Year Longitudinal Study of the Association between Oral Frailty and Deteriorating Nutritional Status among Community-Dwelling Older Adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;18(1). doi: 10.3390/ijerph18010213 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Chen CY, Wu SC, Chen LJ, Lue BH. The prevalence of subjective frailty and factors associated with frailty in Taiwan. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2010;50 Suppl 1:S43–7. doi: 10.1016/S0167-4943(10)70012-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Collard RM, Boter H, Schoevers RA, Oude Voshaar RC. Prevalence of frailty in community-dwelling older persons: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(8):1487–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04054.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kusunoki H, Tsuji S, Wada Y, Fukai M, Itoh M, Sano K, et al. Relationship between sarcopenia and the serum creatinine/cystatin C ratio in Japanese rural community-dwelling older adults. J Cachex Sarcopenia Muscle-Clin Rep. 2018;3:e00057. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Penninx BW, Pahor M, Cesari M, Corsi AM, Woodman RC, Bandinelli S, et al. Anemia is associated with disability and decreased physical performance and muscle strength in the elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(5):719–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52208.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Correia MI, Waitzberg DL. The impact of malnutrition on morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay and costs evaluated through a multivariate model analysis. Clin Nutr. 2003;22(3):235–9. doi: 10.1016/s0261-5614(02)00215-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kaiser MJ, Bauer JM, Rämsch C, Uter W, Guigoz Y, Cederholm T, et al. Frequency of malnutrition in older adults: a multinational perspective using the mini nutritional assessment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(9):1734–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03016.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Sahyoun NR, Jacques PF, Dallal G, Russell RM. Use of albumin as a predictor of mortality in community dwelling and institutionalized elderly populations. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(9):981–8. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(96)00135-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Beaudart C, Sanchez-Rodriguez D, Locquet M, Reginster JY, Lengelé L, Bruyère O. Malnutrition as a Strong Predictor of the Onset of Sarcopenia. Nutrients. 2019;11(12). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Nishi K, Kanouchi H, Tanaka A, Nakamura M, Hamada T, Mishima Y, et al. Relationship between Oral Hypofunction, and Protein Intake: A Cross-Sectional Study in Local Community-Dwelling Adults. Nutrients. 2021;13(12). doi: 10.3390/nu13124377 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Nomura Y, Ishii Y, Suzuki S, Morita K, Suzuki A, Tanabe J, et al. Nutritional Status and Oral Frailty: A Community Based Study. Nutrients. 2020;12(9). doi: 10.3390/nu12092886 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ogawa K, Fujiwara Y, Yoshida H, Nishi M, Fukaya T, Kim M, et al. [The validity of the "Kihon Check-list" as an index of frailty and its biomarkers and inflammatory markers in elderly people]. Nihon Ronen Igakkai Zasshi. 2011;48(5):545–52. doi: 10.3143/geriatrics.48.545 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kugimiya Y, Iwasaki M, Ohara Y, Motokawa K, Edahiro A, Shirobe M, et al. Association between sarcopenia and oral functions in community-dwelling older adults: A cross-sectional study. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2023;14(1):429–38. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.13145 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Nomura Y, Ishii Y, Chiba Y, Suzuki S, Suzuki A, Morita K, et al. Structure and Validity of Questionnaire for Oral Frail Screening. Healthcare (Basel). 2021;9(1). doi: 10.3390/healthcare9010045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Masaki Mogi

25 Jan 2023

PONE-D-23-00128Association between Oral Frailty and Cystatin C-Related Indices - A Questionnaire (OFI-8) Study in General Internal Medicine Practice.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kusunoki,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

This paper in the present form does not reach to an enough level for acceptance in Hypertension Research.  Major revisions are needed according to the Reviewers' comments.  AE did not find the second reviewer in this manuscript. However, the first reviewer showed the significant detailed suggestions. To avoid the delay of the fate, AE decides the fate from the first reviewer. Thus, see the comments carefully and respond them appropriately.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 11 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Masaki Mogi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.  Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf  and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In the present Manuscript, the Authors conducted a cross-sectional study on 251 patients (128 men and 123 women) aged ≥65 years admitted to the Osaka Dental University and the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, between April 2022 and December 2022, to evaluate the association between cystatin C-related indices and oral frailty. Oral health is a neglected but important area in aging research and any contribution in this regard could be very important to highlight the potential association between oral health problems and health-related outcomes. However, the paper needs significant revision including:

Abstract

1. “Age-related deterioration in oral function (oral frailty)…”.

Right from the abstract it would be more appropriate to provide the correct definition of oral frailty, a frailty phenotype that has been recently suggested as a novel construct defined as a decrease in oral function guided by a cluster of impairments (i.e., tooth loss, periodontal disease, inadequate dental prostheses, difficulty in chewing, age-related changes in swallowing, etc.) that worsen oral daily practice functions with a coexisting decline in cognitive and physical functions (please see: Lancet Healthy Longev. 2021 Aug;2(8):e507-e520; J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2018 Nov 10;73(12):1661-1667).

2. Please include in the "methods" subsection of the abstract the median age of the patients and the design of the study.

3. I would replace "grip power" with grip “strength”.

4. I would recommend that the conclusions be modified based on the suggestions provided in the later sections of this review (please see point 8…)

Introduction

5. “Oral frailty, a minor deterioration of oral functions…”.

Again, oral frailty can be defined as a diminished oral function with a co-existing decline in cognitive and physical functions. The importance of this phenotype is linked to the potential reversibility of all oral health deficits and its relevant role as a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, other neurodegenerative conditions, and adverse major health-related outcomes (please see: Geroscience. 2022 Oct 15. doi: 10.1007/s11357-022-00663-8). Talking about potential reversibility, therefore, does not authorize defining oral frailty as a minor deterioration of oral functions.

6. “… is, therefore, a preliminary stage of physical frailty and sarcopenia”.

Oral frailty is certainly associated with physical frailty and sarcopenia but does not represent their preliminary stage. In the cited paper, Tanaka et al., right from the title, talk about oral frailty as a risk factor for physical frailty. The most widely used operational definition of frailty, the biological or syndromic construct of Fried and colleagues, describes a phenotype. This original phenotype is often referred to as physical frailty, to distinguish it from similarly constructed frailty syndromes for cognitive frailty, social frailty, and organ-specific frailties, as, in this case, oral frailty.

7. “By approaching and evaluating oral frailty from a medical perspective…”.

This concept was well expressed in a recent Editorial which underlined how frailty can be considered primary/pre-clinical when not directly associated with a specific disease and without a significant functional disability. Therefore, frailty phenotypes (e.g. oral frailty) could be able to better define primary frailty and may potentially be applied in a pre-clinical context, tailoring specific treatments and/or prevention strategies. In contrast, frailty may be secondary/clinical, a condition better defined using the deficit accumulation frailty model, if associated with accumulating multimorbidity, i.e., dementia, cerebral or cardiovascular diseases, and/or functional disability (please see: Curr Top Med Chem. 2022 Jun 15).

8. “… if an index that reflects oral function can be established using blood test data…”.

It would be more appropriate to talk about the association between oral frailty and cystatin C-related indices, which is the topic of the study, instead of considering the above indices as a sign of the concomitant presence of oral frailty, because the serum level of cystatin C is also a stronger predictor of other organ-specific outcomes, such as the renal outcome and the risk of cardiovascular events.

Methods

9. There is no information on who carried out the oral assessments. How many people? Were they doctors, dentists, or dental hygienists? Were the inter- and intra-observer agreements evaluated?

10. Can the Oral Frailty Index-8 be considered a checklist proposed by the Japan dental association since the paper by Tanaka et al. in which it was proposed is from 2021?

Discussion

11. “Minor deterioration of oral function in the elderly, such as increased choking, spills, and tongue deterioration…”.

Again, that is not the correct definition of oral frailty (please see points 1 and 5).

12. “Oral frailty is defined as a mild decline in oral function, and it occurs in the early and reversible stages of frailty”.

There is some confusion and overlap between the concepts of physical and oral frailty. More clarity is recommended (please see point 7).

13. “The combined use of these indices is expected to provide a multifaceted understanding and evaluation of both systemic and oral frailty”.

There is still an overlap between the two operational definitions of frailty i.e. the physical/biological construct of Fried and colleagues and the deficit accumulation model of Rockwood and Mitnitski. How can the above indices fit into the physical frailty model?

Furthermore, an association between cystatin C-related indices and oral frailty is not pathognomonic of the presence of oral frailty, since, as pointed out earlier, the same indices are also associated with other diseases and outcomes.

14. The limitations of the study sub-section should be implemented.

Conclusion

The conclusion is overstated. “The combined use of cystatin C-related indices and OFI-8 could facilitate screening for oral frailty at an early stage and prevent systemic sarcopenia/frailty.”

That is not correct. These are different assessments for two different outcomes that may or may not be associated.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Francesco Panza, MD, PhD

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Apr 24;18(4):e0283803. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283803.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 Mar 2023

Response to reviewer #1

We would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive criticism and helpful suggestions, which helped us revise and improve our manuscript. We would also like to thank the reviewers for their valuable remarks.

In addition, the order of the review items has been slightly rearranged according to related items.

Reviewer #1:

In the present Manuscript, the Authors conducted a cross-sectional study on 251 patients (128 men and 123 women) aged ≥65 years admitted to the Osaka Dental University and the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, between April 2022 and December 2022, to evaluate the association between cystatin C-related indices and oral frailty. Oral health is a neglected but important area in aging research and any contribution in this regard could be very important to highlight the potential association between oral health problems and health-related outcomes. However, the paper needs significant revision including:

Abstract

1. “Age-related deterioration in oral function (oral frailty)…”.

Right from the abstract it would be more appropriate to provide the correct definition of oral frailty, a frailty phenotype that has been recently suggested as a novel construct defined as a decrease in oral function guided by a cluster of impairments (i.e., tooth loss, periodontal disease, inadequate dental prostheses, difficulty in chewing, age-related changes in swallowing, etc.) that worsen oral daily practice functions with a coexisting decline in cognitive and physical functions (please see: Lancet Healthy Longev. 2021 Aug;2(8):e507-e520; J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2018 Nov 10;73(12):1661-1667).

5. “Oral frailty, a minor deterioration of oral functions…”.

Again, oral frailty can be defined as a diminished oral function with a co-existing decline in cognitive and physical functions. The importance of this phenotype is linked to the potential reversibility of all oral health deficits and its relevant role as a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, other neurodegenerative conditions, and adverse major health-related outcomes (please see: Geroscience. 2022 Oct 15. doi: 10.1007/s11357-022-00663-8). Talking about potential reversibility, therefore, does not authorize defining oral frailty as a minor deterioration of oral functions.

6. “… is, therefore, a preliminary stage of physical frailty and sarcopenia”.

Oral frailty is certainly associated with physical frailty and sarcopenia but does not represent their preliminary stage. In the cited paper, Tanaka et al., right from the title, talk about oral frailty as a risk factor for physical frailty. The most widely used operational definition of frailty, the biological or syndromic construct of Fried and colleagues, describes a phenotype. This original phenotype is often referred to as physical frailty, to distinguish it from similarly constructed frailty syndromes for cognitive frailty, social frailty, and organ-specific frailties, as, in this case, oral frailty.

Poor oral health among the elderly is an important issue in general health, due to associations with the pathogenesis of frailty, which suggests a multidimensional geriatric syndrome.

11. “Minor deterioration of oral function in the elderly, such as increased choking, spills, and tongue deterioration…”.

Again, that is not the correct definition of oral frailty (please see points 1 and 5).

A. We have followed your suggestions and added the following text to the “Abstract” and “Introduction” sections. According to your suggestions, we have re-written the definition of oral frailty as follows:

Abstract P2 L47-51

“Oral frailty is defined as an age-related gradual loss of oral functions, accompanied by a decline in cognitive and physical functions. It results in adverse health-related outcomes in older age, including mortality, physical frailty, functional disability, poor quality of life, and increased hospitalization and falls.  Therefore, poor oral health among the elderly is an important health concern due to its association with the pathogenesis of systemic frailty, suggesting it to be a multidimensional geriatric syndrome. ”

Introduction P2 L84-93

“Oral health is an essential aspect of health, life satisfaction, QoL, and self-perception. Impairment of oral function is highly common in older adults, and aging has been reported to indirectly interact with several frailty domains through multiple pathways. An overt example of this relationship is age-related functional oral deterioration, characterized by poor dental hygiene, inadequate dental prostheses, and dietary deficiencies, resulting in a high risk of nutritional frailty(1).  

Oral frailty is defined as an age-related gradual loss of oral function, accompanied by a decline in cognitive and physical functions. It results in major adverse health-related outcomes in older age, including mortality, physical frailty, functional disability, loss of quality of life, and reduced hospitalization and falls (2).

Poor oral health among the elderly is an important health concern due to its association with the pathogenesis of systemic frailty, suggesting it to be a multidimensional geriatric syndrome. Therefore, oral frailty may be a risk factor for systemic frailty (3).”

Discussion P5

L199

“Oral frailty is defined as a mild decline in oral functions during the early and reversible stages of frailty.”

L203-204

“Frailty, in contrast, is considered a state of increased vulnerability to disease onset and physical dysfunction due to a decline in several functions associated with aging.”

2. Please include in the "methods" subsection of the abstract the median age of the patients and the design of the study.

A. The mean and median ages are listed in the "Abstract" and "Materials and Methods" sections. We have mentioned the study design in the "Materials and Methods" section that this study was a cross-sectional study. Please check. (P4, L124-127)

“This was a cross-sectional study. All patients aged ≥ 65 years enrolled in this study were Japanese and provided informed consent to participate. We enrolled 251 patients with a mean age of 77.7±6.6 years and a median age of 77 years (128 men: mean age, 77.1±7.3 years; median age, 77 years and 123 women: mean age, 78.4±5.7 years; median age, 78 years)”

3. I would replace "grip power" with grip “strength”.

A. The term "grip power" has been replaced with "grip strength" throughout the manuscript Please check.

4. I would recommend that the conclusions be modified based on the suggestions provided in the later sections of this review (please see point 8…)

8. “… if an index that reflects oral function can be established using blood test data…”.

It would be more appropriate to talk about the association between oral frailty and cystatin C-related indices, which is the topic of the study, instead of considering the above indices as a sign of the concomitant presence of oral frailty, because the serum level of cystatin C is also a stronger predictor of other organ-specific outcomes, such as the renal outcome and the risk of cardiovascular events.

13. “The combined use of these indices is expected to provide a multifaceted understanding and evaluation of both systemic and oral frailty”.

There is still an overlap between the two operational definitions of frailty i.e. the physical/biological construct of Fried and colleagues and the deficit accumulation model of Rockwood and Mitnitski. How can the above indices fit into the physical frailty model?

Furthermore, an association between cystatin C-related indices and oral frailty is not pathognomonic of the presence of oral frailty, since, as pointed out earlier, the same indices are also associated with other diseases and outcomes.

A. In light of your comments, we have added the following text: Please check it. P5 L203-P6 L211

“Frailty, in contrast, is considered a state of increased vulnerability to disease onset and physical dysfunction due to a decline in several functions associated with aging. Sarcopenia, a state of reduced muscle mass, is a typical physical frailty phenotype. Cystatin C is a strong predictor of organ-specific outcomes such as cardiovascular events, life outcomes (30), and renal outcomes (31). One advantage of CysC over creatinine, which is also a marker of renal function, is that Cystatin C is less affected by muscle mass.

As muscle mass decreases, Cr decreases relative to CysC, which is less affected by muscle mass. Therefore, cystatin C-related indices, such as Cr/CysC and eGFRcys/eGFRcre, decrease. Therefore, cystatin C-related indices have been demonstrated to be lower in physically frail individuals. In this study, we showed that cystatin C-related indices are also lower in high-risk states of oral frailty, a phenotype of physical frailty.”

7. “By approaching and evaluating oral frailty from a medical perspective…”.

This concept was well expressed in a recent Editorial which underlined how frailty can be considered primary/pre-clinical when not directly associated with a specific disease and without a significant functional disability. Therefore, frailty phenotypes (e.g. oral frailty) could be able to better define primary frailty and may potentially be applied in a pre-clinical context, tailoring specific treatments and/or prevention strategies. In contrast, frailty may be secondary/clinical, a condition better defined using the deficit accumulation frailty model, if associated with accumulating multimorbidity, i.e., dementia, cerebral or cardiovascular diseases, and/or functional disability (please see: Curr Top Med Chem. 2022 Jun 15).

12. “Oral frailty is defined as a mild decline in oral function, and it occurs in the early and reversible stages of frailty”. There is some confusion and overlap between the concepts of physical and oral frailty. More clarity is recommended (please see point 7).

A. In light of your comments, we have added the following text: Please check it.

P6 L212-214

“Frailty can be considered primary/pre-clinical when not directly associated with a specific disease and without significant functional disability. Therefore, frailty phenotypes (for example, oral frailty) could better define primary frailty and potentially be applied to a pre-clinical context, tailoring specific treatments and/or prevention strategies.”

P7 L271-275

“There exists certain confusion and overlap between the concepts of physical and oral frailty. In addition, there exists an overlap among the diagnostic indicators. The OFI-8 index includes the question, "Do you have any difficulties eating tough foods compared to 6 months ago?", “Have you choked on your tea or soup recently?” and “Do you often experience having a dry mouth?” The same questions exist in the Kihon checklist, which was designed to screen for systemic frailty (49).”

P7 L279-280

“Thus, we would like to propose a bidirectional approach from both medical and dental perspectives.”

P7 L284- P8 L299

“Recently, Kugimiya et al. reported that multiple aspects of oral functions including occlusal force, tongue-lip motor function, tongue pressure, masticatory function, and swallowing function were low among community-dwelling older adults with sarcopenia (50). The group with a high OFI score and at high risk for oral frailty was found to have low grip strength, low muscle strength, and muscle mass, as reflected by the low values of cystatin C-related indices in the high-risk oral frailty group.

Low cystatin C-related indices suggest low skeletal muscle mass and a high risk of oral frailty. This finding suggests that low cystatin C-related indices are associated with low skeletal muscle mass and a high risk of oral frailty. If cystatin C-related indices assessed in the medical practice setting are low, it is recommended that oral frailty risk be assessed using the OFI-8 questionnaire. Moreover, if necessary, a precise oral function evaluation by a dentist should be recommended. The present study also demonstrated that Hb and Alb levels were low in the group identified as having a high risk of oral frailty by the OFI-8 index. These patients may have potential systemic diseases such as anemia and malnutrition.

This study reported an association between cystatin C-related indices and OFI-8 scores. A low cystatin C-related index is associated with a high risk of sarcopenia and oral frailty from a medical perspective, whereas a high OFI-8 score recommends a precise evaluation of oral functions from a dental perspective. Furthermore, this finding indicates the presence of sarcopenia, systemic frailty, or systemic diseases.”

9. There is no information on who carried out the oral assessments. How many people? Were they doctors, dentists, or dental hygienists? Were the inter- and intra-observer agreements evaluated?

A. We have included the following text in the “Materials and Methods section.  Inter- and intra-observer agreements were not assessed because we used a simple Yes or No questionnaire that asked the subjects to answer questions that would not have resulted in intra-observer differences.

P4 L132-133

“Oral assessments using the questionnaire were performed by five internal medicine outpatient physicians.“

10. Can the Oral Frailty Index-8 be considered a checklist proposed by the Japan dental association since the paper by Tanaka et al. in which it was proposed is from 2021?

A. The Japan Dental Association proposed an index for diagnosing oral hypofunction that was published in 2018. The checklist in the Tanaka et al. paper was established in the Kashiwa study, an epidemiological study of the elderly at the University of Tokyo. Therefore, the checklist is not the one proposed by the Japan Dental Association. We have corrected the sentence as follows:

P4 L148-149

“The Oral Frailty Index-8 (OFI-8) was used in this study. The questionnaire consists of eight items and is widely used in Japan.”

14. The limitations of the study sub-section should be implemented.

A. A new section named “Limitation has been added. Please check.

Conclusion

The conclusion is overstated. “The combined use of cystatin C-related indices and OFI-8 could facilitate screening for oral frailty at an early stage and prevent systemic sarcopenia/frailty.”

That is not correct. These are different assessments for two different outcomes that may or may not be associated.

A. As you have pointed out, the use of the Cystatin C-related index in combination with the OFI-8 does not prevent systemic sarcopenia and frailty. Therefore, we conclude that our primary focus is on "the importance of approaching systemic frailty and oral frailty from both medical and dental perspectives and promoting medical-dental collaboration."

P8 L319-323

“Conventionally, cystatin C-related indices have been considered effective in screening systemic frailty and sarcopenia, whereas the OFI-8 index is considered effective in screening oral frailty. The present study demonstrated a relationship between the indices considered effective for screening both systemic and oral frailty, which have conventionally been evaluated separately from medical and dental perspectives. It is important to promote medical-dental collaboration by approaching systemic and oral frailty from both medical and dental perspectives.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: renamed_7d131.docx

Decision Letter 1

Masaki Mogi

20 Mar 2023

Association between Oral Frailty and Cystatin C-Related Indices - A Questionnaire (OFI-8) Study in General Internal Medicine Practice.

PONE-D-23-00128R1

Dear Dr. Kusunoki,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Masaki Mogi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The manuscript by Kusunoki et al. has been well-assessed by the Reviewer. It is ready to be accepted to PlosOne. No further comment.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed. Thank you!

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Francesco Panza, MD, PhD

**********

Acceptance letter

Masaki Mogi

14 Apr 2023

PONE-D-23-00128R1

Association between Oral Frailty and Cystatin C-Related Indices - A Questionnaire (OFI-8) Study in General Internal Medicine Practice.

Dear Dr. Kusunoki:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Masaki Mogi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: renamed_7d131.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be released because it contains personal patient information. Researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data may obtain the data via the Clinical Trials Committee. The name of the institution limiting this data is the IRB of Osaka Dental University. If you would like to access the data, please contact us by phone (+81-72-864-3111) or online (https://www.osaka-dent.ac.jp/access.html).


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES