Table1:

Summary of 5 major points derived from symposium with resulting recommendations

1	Broad use of generic term “frailty” to capture both conceptualization and measurement confuses clinicians and investigators and further slows integration into clinical practice. Work across research field to use more specific language that will help to differentiate frailty concepts and measures.
2	The slow integration of frailty measurement in clinical practice is likely due to lack of clinical studies that demonstrate clear benefit and/or related clinical recommendations for older adults. Develop randomized, controlled studies of specific intervention strategies stratified by frailty standards and develop studies targeting frailty “per se”.
3	Subspecialists have made progress in the development of frailty-related risk assessment tools, but few have developed specific clinical recommendations based on frailty status. Develop implementation studies and therapeutic trials aimed at tailoring care as a function of pragmatic frailty markers.
4	NIA’s Geroscience initiative has focused the need to integrate new knowledge of aging biology into frailty research and towards translation into diagnostic, preventive and treatment strategies. Develop key biological studies that focus on mitochondrial biology, stem cells, and cellular senescence would likely be of highest yield.
5	Evidence suggests that broad age-related changes in physiological stress response systems and energy metabolism contribute to frailty. Utilization of deep learning and dynamical systems approaches and the development of interventions that target specific system components may facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of frailty.

Bold= Summary Statement Italics= Recommendation