Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Dec 6;17(12):e0278371. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278371

What is the overlap between malnutrition, frailty and sarcopenia in the older population? Study protocol for cross-sectional study using UK Biobank

Nada AlMohaisen 1,2,3, Matthew Gittins 1,3, Chris Todd 1,3,4, Sorrel Burden 1,3,5,*
Editor: Sultana Monira Hussain6
PMCID: PMC9725160  PMID: 36472992

Abstract

Background

In an increasingly older adult population, understanding the inter-relationship between three age related conditions malnutrition, frailty and sarcopenia is important in order to improve their recognition, treatment and prevention. This study aims to determine the overlap between malnutrition, frailty and sarcopenia by measuring estimates of prevalence for each individual condition. In addition, we will compare two models of frailty which are the accumulation of deficits and phenotype models.

Methods/design

This is a cross-sectional study that will use the UK Biobank database, which will include a subset of 381,000 participants: males and females aged 50 years and above who completed the baseline assessments. For the baseline assessments, details of the participants’ characteristics will be included. All three conditions will be identified and mapped to variables collected at the baseline assessment. Variables for malnutrition will be mapped according to the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria. Frailty will be defined according to two models: the 36 deficits and the phenotype model. Finally, sarcopenia will be assessed according to the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) standard.

Discussion

This proposed study will help to understand the presence of malnutrition, frailty and sarcopenia in the older population and describe any overlap between the conditions. There is little published research on the overlap between these three conditions. Despite the similarity and shared criteria used for the identification of malnutrition, frailty and sarcopenia there is still a lack of cohesive thinking around the overlap of applied definitions and identification criteria.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04655456 approved on the 10th of December 2020.

Background

The population around the world is ageing rapidly. It is expected that by 2050, the number of people older than 65 years worldwide will increase to two billion [1]. In England, the number of older people reached 18% of the population in 2016 [2]. Regardless of the decline in fertility and birth rates, all countries are experiencing an increase in life expectancy [3]. This increase has resulted in a rising demand for, and pressure on, local services. There is a particular demand for these services within the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK, where budget spending on older people grew from two percent to 16% between 2007 and 2016 [4]. Therefore, the health status of older members of the population is becoming a priority. A healthy dietary intake and active lifestyle are key components for healthy aging and are well recognised as factors associated with a lower risk of developing lifestyle-related diseases [57].

The aging process involves changes in body functions including alterations in the sense of smell and taste and capacity to chew and swallow [8]. These changes directly affect appetite and food intake [8], which can have an impact on nutritional status and can lead to malnutrition in the form of undernutrition [8]. There are two forms of malnutrition undernutrition, and being overweight or obese which results from diet-related non-communicable diseases [9, 10]. Cachexia is a another nutritional disorder which can be define as “a complex metabolic syndrome associated with underlying illness and characterized by loss of muscle with or without loss of fat mass” [11]. Malnutrition “undernutrition” is common in older people and generally increases with aging [12, 13]. It is crucial to detect malnutrition in older people because it causes a decline in overall health [14]. It can worsen the deterioration of health and functional status, and increase the risk of dependency and disability [12]. It is associated with undesirable health conditions, including an increased likelihood of morbidity and mortality [15, 16], an increased risk of falls [17], reduced cognitive function, and decreased bone mass in older people living in community dwellings [18, 19]. Furthermore, older malnourished inpatients have a higher number of complications and longer hospital episodes, which result in increased associated healthcare costs [10].

Over the last few decades, many criteria have been proposed for identifying malnutrition and many tools have been implemented. Most of these tools include a combination of the same variables or criteria: weight loss, body mass index (BMI) and signs of eating difficulties [20]. One of the most recently proposed definitions of malnutrition emerged from the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM). Here malnutrition is determined using a phenotype and aetiological model, which includes three phenotypes (non-volitional weight loss, low BMI and reduced muscle mass) and two aetiological criteria (reduced food intake and inflammation) [21]. The GLIM has broader criteria because it was developed using previous screening and assessment tools to ensure it is applicable in all countries and transferable to all settings. By using the GLIM criteria malnutrition can be compared in different settings through prevalence, incidence, intervention and outcome [21].

In addition to malnutrition, two other conditions frailty and sarcopenia are widespread in older populations. All three conditions are characterised with a loss of body tissue, which can result in negative outcomes such as an increased risk of falls [22], poor quality of life [23], increased risk of mortality [24, 25]. Malnutrition and frailty both have other similar characteristics in the assessments used, including, functional and cognitive status. Thus there is overlap in the definition and treatment of these conditions [26].

Frailty is associated with ageing and may lead to premature death [27, 28], multi-morbidity, specific long-term conditions and mortality [29, 30]. In addition, frailty has been shown to decrease the quality of life of older people [31]. It can be defined as a ‘state of increased vulnerability to poor resolution of homoeostasis after a stressor event’ [32]. Two of the most widely used models used to identify frailty are the phenotype model, which describes a group of patient characteristics [32], and the cumulative deficit model, which assumes an accumulation of deficits that happen with ageing [33, 34].

The phenotype model describes frailty as a ‘clinical syndrome in which three or more of the following criteria are present: unintentional weight loss (10 lbs in the past year), self-reported exhaustion, weakness (grip strength), slow walking speed and low physical activity’ [35]. This model is used as the definition to diagnose frailty in many studies [36].

The cumulative deficit model was proposed by Rockwood and Mitnitski and was validated in the Canadian study of Health and Aging [36, 37]. This model used an index that considers symptoms, signs, diseases and disabilities as deficits that are combined into an FI to determine frailty [38]. The original cumulative deficit model was based on 92 variables [39]. Subsequent research revealed that it could be reduced to 30 variables, without a loss in predictive validity [40]. The cumulative deficit model calculates the FI by defining the numbers of health deficits present in a person, and then dividing by the number of health deficits considered [38, 41].

In addition to malnutrition and frailty, the older adult population may also experience the related condition sarcopenia. In 2000, the World Health Organisation(WHO) estimated that 600 million people aged 60 or older worldwide were diagnosed with sarcopenia [42]. This number is predicted to increase to 1.2 billion by 2025, and to double by the year 2050 [42]. A study suggested that frailty and its relation to sarcopenia, malnutrition and other factors is a network called the ‘geriatric web of frailty’ [43]. It argued that frailty is a complex condition caused by many interacting factors, such as falls, fractures, impaired protein synthesis, malnutrition and sarcopenia [43]. Many researchers have shown that the overlap between frailty and sarcopenia is due to the shared features between them, such as weight loss and low physical capability. This is because both conditions involve a failure in skeletal muscle (low physical function) that is detected through grip strength and gait speed [35, 44].

People with sarcopenia have specific characteristics, including a low body weight and a deterioration in physical performance [45]. It can be defined as ‘a progressive and generalised skeletal muscle disorder that is associated with an increased likelihood of adverse outcomes including falls, fractures, physical disability and mortality’ [46]. Older adults with sarcopenia have reported poorer general health and physical function scores compared to participants without sarcopenia [45].

The European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) recommended criteria for diagnosing sarcopenia. These include low muscle mass, low muscle strength and lower physical performance [46]. In order to detect sarcopenia, two parameters are needed pertaining to the amount of muscle and its function. These can be translated into measurable variables: muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical performance [47]. To measure muscle mass, there are many techniques that could be used for assessment. These include computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, dual energy X-ray, and bioimpedance analysis [47]. The measurement of muscle strength has fewer validated techniques, and one of the most widely used is handgrip strength because it is easy to use and readily available [48]. Others include knee flexion or extension or peak expiratory flow. There are a number of methods that have been used for physical performance, including the short physical performance battery, gait speed, the timed get-up-and-go test and the stair climb power test [47]. However, the gait speed test is usually used for clinical practice and research [47].

There are different cut-off points when defining sarcopenia that are based on the measurement technique used and the availability of reference standards. The EWGSOP recommends the use of a reference value derived by calculating two standard deviations below the mean from data collected from healthy, young adults rather than other predictive reference population cut-off points [47].

The aim of this study is to explore the overlap between malnutrition, frailty and sarcopenia in an older population, using UK biobank data, by determining the estimated prevalence of these three conditions.

Methods/design of UK Biobank

This is a cross-sectional study using participants recruited to the UK Biobank. The UK Biobank is a population-based prospective longitudinal cohort with information on approximately 500,000 people. Participants were recruited from the NHS aged between 40–69 years. However, the database included participants aged 37 to 73 for the baseline visit. Data were collected for the initial assessment visit between 2007 and 2010. This was termed the baseline assessment that will be used for this study. An invitation was sent by mail to people who were living within a reasonable travelling distance from the assessment centres used for data collection. People were recruited from England, Scotland and Wales.

At the baseline assessment visit, all participants had to be able to give consent before starting the assessment. Then a series of assessment stations where undertaken that included a touchscreen questionnaire and an interview questionnaire about diet, cognitive function, work history and digestive health [49]. In addition to demographic data, the participants were given cognitive function tests, their height, hip and waist measurements were recorded, as well as their bioelectrical impedance measurements and hand-grip strength. The UK Biobank database aims to improve prevention, diagnosis and treatment of a broad number of diseases. This detailed information on participants provides a resource for investigators to conduct research relating to particular diseases [49].

The UK Biobank Ethics and Governance Council (EGC) was founded by the Medical Research Council and Wellcome Trust, allowing them to act independently [50]. The UK Biobank controls all access to and use of the data [50]. However, UK Biobank evaluates all proposals to verify that they would be compliant with the participants’ consent and the Biobank’s Governance Framework and have received the required ethics approval [50]. The researcher and collaborators signed a Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) with the UK Biobank. The MTA was submitted and the payment process completed for the approved application, allowing the data to be released to the approved researcher.

Eligibility and exclusion criteria

The participants included in the study will be both male and female, aged 50 years or older, who completed a touchscreen questionnaire, and physical measurements. Any participant who is under 50 will be excluded.

Study sample size

This study will be a subset of the main sample size from the UK Biobank, and it is anticipated 381,000 participants will meet the inclusion criteria (76% of the total sample of participants in the UK Biobank, who met the inclusion criteria age 50 and above) [29].

Baseline characteristics

Participant characteristics that will be recorded are detailed in Table 1.

Table 1. Baseline participant characteristics.

Variable Data Description Categories Description/Units of measurement
Age reported in years
Gender male or female
Smoking status prefer not to answer, never, previous and current.
Medications use number of medications (treatments) were entered by participants in the questionnaire.
Alcohol intake Seven categories: daily, almost daily, three or four times a week, once or twice a week, one to three times a month, special occasions only, never and prefer not to answer.
Education level prefer not to answer, none of the above and other professional qualifications. Other professional grouped: NVQ, HND, HNC or equivalent; CSES or equivalent; an O levels/GCSEs; an A levels/AS levels or equivalent; or a college or university degree
Occupation Ten groups: manager and senior officials, professional occupations, associate professional and technical occupations, administrative and secretarial occupations, skilled trade occupations, personal service occupations, sales and customer service occupations, process plant and machine operatives, elementary occupations or other jobs
Income Seven groups: less than 18,000; 18,000 to 30,999; 31,000 to 51,999; 52,000 to 100,000; greater than 100,000; and the ‘do not know’ and the ‘prefer not to answer’ groups Pounds sterling
Ethnicity Eight categories: White, Mixed, Asian or Asian British, Black or Black British or Chinese; and another ethnic group, do not know, and prefer not to answer.

NVQ = National Vocational Qualification, HND = Higher National Diploma, HNC = Higher National Certificate, CSES = Certificate of Secondary Education, GCSEs = General Certificate of Secondary Education or equivalent

At the baseline assessment participants’ medical histories were recorded including a list of comorbidities that is described as 43 long-term conditions similar to the Hanlon study [29]. In addition, we will include other characteristics as shown in Table 1.

Mapping malnutrition to biobank variables

The GLIM criteria will be applied to variables collected in the UK Biobank database in order to define participants with malnutrition. It includes five criteria, which will be mapped to equivalent variables that are available in the UK Biobank shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Variable mapped to malnutrition, frailty and sarcopenia.
Variable Data Description Categories Description/Units of measurement Malnutrition Frailty Sarcopenia
Dietary intake FFQ and 24-hour dietary recall X
Anthropometric measurements height measured using a Seca 202 height measuring rod and weight measured using Tanita BC-418 MA body composition analyser Height recorded in centimetre unit Weight recorded in kilograms unit X X X
Body composition Bioelectrical impedance using Tanita BC-418MA body composition analyser used to determine body composition fat mass, fat-free mass and body water. X X X
Handgrip strength Jamar J00105 hydraulic hand dynamometer Kilogram X X

These variables will represent three phenotypic criteria and two etiologic criteria, where patients will be defined as having malnutrition if they have one phenotypic criterion and one aetiological criterion. The three phenotypic criteria are BMI < 22 kg/m2 if participants are 70 years or older, or BMI < 20 kg/m2 if participants are under 70 years old [21]; weight loss, as reported by the participants’ response to ‘Compared with one year ago, has your weight changed?’; and finally fat free mass index, calculated by dividing fat free mass by height squared (FFMI, kg/m2). The thresholds will be <17 kg/m2 for males and < 15 kg/m2 for females [20].

The first etiologic criteria, is defined as reduced food intake < 50% reduction of the standard energy requirement for the male group (50–54 years: 2,581 kcal/day, 55–64 years: 2,581 kcal/day, 65–74 years: 2,342 kcal/day) and the female group (50–54 years: 2,103 kcal/day, 55–64 years: 2,079 kcal/day, 65–74 years: 1,912 kcal/day) [51]. The second etiologic criterion is inflammation based on the C-reactive protein (CRP). [11, 52].

Mapping frailty to biobank variables

Two models will be used to define frailty and compared. Only one model will be used to consider the overlap with malnutrition and sarcopenia. The 36 deficits model, has been constructed and validated, and applied to large data sets previously [39]. It will be matched to equivalent variables recorded in the UK Biobank. These are listed in S1 Table. The cumulative deficit model calculates the FI by defining the numbers of health deficits present in a person and then dividing by the number of health deficits considered [38, 41]. For instance, a participant with three deficits would have an index score of 3, which out of 36 equals a 0.083 FI. The threshold levels will be: low (robust), where the FI is less than or equal to 0.2; medium (pre-frail), where the FI is more than 0.2 and less than or equal to 0.35; and high (frail), where the FI is more than 0.35. These levels were suggested by Kulminski and colleagues and used in studies that looked at frailty, bone health, and overall mortality [53, 54].

The phenotype model, includes five criteria that will also be mapped with available variables in the UK Biobank. The first four criteria are derived from the self-reported variables entered by participants including: weight loss, exhaustion, slow walking pace and low physical activity. Hand grip strength is a measured variable See Table 2. These criteria were previously used in two studies based on the UK Biobank database [29, 55]. Participants will be classified as robust (met none of the frailty criteria), pre-frail (met one or two of the criteria) or frail (met three or more of the criteria) according to cut-offs described by Fried and colleagues [35]. This is done to ensure consistency with the existing literature, refer to Table 3.

Table 3. Mapping the phenotype model.
Variable Data Description Categories Description/Units
weight loss The information is provided by the participants’ answer to the question ‘compared with one year ago, has your weight changed?’ Response: yes, lost weight = 1, other = 0
exhaustion Determined by the question ‘over the past two weeks, how often have you felt tired or had little energy?’ Response: more than half the days or nearly every day = 1, other = 0
walking speed Determined from answers to the question ‘how would you describe your usual walking pace? (1) slow pace
(2) steady/average pace or
(3) brisk pace
physical activity Derived by using both the Total Metabolic Equivalent [MET] and the physical activity questionnaire
handgrip strength Cut-points classified according to gender men less than 30kg women less than 20kg

Mapping sarcopenia

The EWGSOP standard definition of Sarcopenia has three criteria that can be mapped to variables in the biobank. Sarcopenia is diagnosed if the person has low muscle mass in addition to criterion two or three. The first is muscle mass measured by bioelectrical impedance and the second is muscle strength, measured by handgrip strength (see Table 2). Finally, physical performance as assessed by the participants’ self-reported answers to the validated International Physical Activity Questionnaire [56].

Statistical analysis

All data analysis was performed using Stata V16/MP (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA).

To describe the overlap of the three conditions, a Venn diagram will be produced. Due to the lack of independence as the conditions overlap prevalence estimates and the corresponding confidence intervals will be calculated for each segment.

Estimates of prevalence for malnutrition, frailty and sarcopenia will be calculated for the number of older people included at baseline in the study. The number identified with each condition of interest (numerator) will be divided by the total sample (denominator). The resulting proportion will be multiplied by 100,000 to give the number with each condition per 100,000 persons aged over 50 years old in the population. This ‘crude’ estimate is likely to be biased due to differences between the age and gender structure of the Biobank and the UK population. To provide a more representative estimate of prevalence, a direct standardisation approach will be applied. The Biobank sample will be stratified by age groups (e.g., 50–54, 55–59, 60–64, etc.) and gender (male/female), and the prevalence within each group will be estimated. These will then be weighted (using direct standardisation) based on the age and gender population of the UK. This comparison population for the UK will be obtained from the Office of National Statistics for the equivalent time period (2008). If possible, we will repeat the direct standardisation adjustment for ethnicity, socioeconomic status and education level. In each case, 95% confidence intervals will be calculated for the population proportion.

To compare the agreement between the two methods used to measure frailty, we will describe and compare the proportion estimate based on the overlap in 95% confidence intervals and the level of agreement with a Kappa comparison. The Kappa comparison indicates the level of agreement compared to random chance alone. In this comparison, a value of one means a perfect agreement compared to zero, which indicates a level of agreement no better than random chance alone. For intermediate values, Landis and Koch (1977) suggested the following interpretations: below 0.0: poor; 0.00–0.20: slight; 0.21–0.40: fair; 0.41–0.60: moderate; 0.61–0.80: substantial; 0.81–1.00: almost perfect.

From the baseline assessment, details of the participants’ characteristics anthropometric measurements, participants’ medical histories, smoking status, uses of medications, dietary intake records and alcohol intake will be used. This descriptive information will be considered covariates. In this study any missing data present in the key variables related to determining the outcome, i.e., the presence of the condition, as well as the key descriptive covariates, will be described and details will be given on how the variables influence the results.

Discussion

Research describing the three conditions- malnutrition, frailty and sarcopenia- and their overlap in the population is currently limited. Few researchers have studied the effect of two of the three conditions in older adults [26, 57], but the three conditions are rarely studied together [43]. In a group of 92 selected nursing home residents aged 75 and above all three conditions were present in 7%. Twenty-nine (32%) residents were neither malnourished, sarcopenic nor frail. In addition, 5% of the residents were malnourished and simultaneously sarcopenic and frailty coexisted with sarcopenia in 10% of the subjects. In a group of 92 residents, selected from nursing home aged 75 and above, were measured for the overlap between malnutrition, frailty and sarcopenia. It showed all three conditions were present in 7% of residents, while 32% of the participants were free from malnutrition, frailty, and sarcopenia. In addition, 5% of residents were malnourished with sarcopenia in the nursing home and frailty coexisted with sarcopenia in 10% of subjects [58]. These three conditions affect mobility and increase the risk of disability, which has been shown to shorten lifespans [29, 45, 59]. One study reported an indicator called healthy life years (HLY) and measured it across 14 European countries between 1995 and 2003. The results showed that HLY indicator was stagnated in UK males, and decreased in UK females aged 65 years and above [60, 61]. This highlights that early identification of these conditions in older adults is vital so treatment and interventions can be initiated in this age group [62]. However, the evidence behind these conditions is still developing and an evidence gap still exists. Thus, further studies are needed in order to describe then understand the overlap between malnutrition, frailty and sarcopenia.

This proposed research aims to investigate the estimated prevalence of three conditions—malnutrition, frailty and sarcopenia—in people aged 50 years and above who are living in community dwellings using the UK Biobank database. In order to conduct this study, many variables need to be mapped with the available variables in the UK Biobank database. It will be challenging, as not all variables in the diagnostic criteria for malnutrition, frailty and sarcopenia are in the database. For example, the GLIM criteria will be used to identify malnourished older people within the UK Biobank participants. In the phenotypic criteria, we will map weight loss using the participants’ answers to the question ‘compared with one year ago, has your weight changed?’, and not by using the amount of weight recorded. For frailty, the 36 deficits will be matched with the UK Biobank database. However, not all 36 deficits variables were available in the database. For example, the deficit ‘best mobility and transfer problems’ was mapped with an attendance/disability/mobility allowance variable in the database, which has the best-matched information. Although we have made as much effort as possible to match equivalent variables there will be some variables where matches are not as specific as they could be. However, the sarcopenia EWGSOP diagnostic criteria was matched with similar variables in the database with no issue. In addition to these factors the biobank data is not representative of the UK population as a whole [49]. However, the findings of this study will be standardised using data from a second source so the results will be more generalisable.

Other studies have used biobank data and published results mapping definitions of sarcopenia and frailty to available biobank variables [29, 55, 63] and these studies have been considered in this study design.

Study limitations

This study has several limitations. First, the study uses a secondary database (the UK Biobank) not designed specifically to answer this research question. This comes with some limitation because there is a degree of selection bias in the sample. The UK biobank has a healthier population compared to the general population in the UK thus, it is expected that the prevalence of the three conditions may be lower [64]. Secondly, this study is dependent on the available variables (handgrip, BMI, physical activity, walking pace, exhaustion) to detect the prevalence of frailty, although these measures are surrogate indicators for frailty. In addition, some variables used for the identification of malnutrition, frailty and sarcopenia were self-reported by the participants. Standard operating procedures were used for measurements at the baseline visits for anthropometry, however it is unknown if the equipment was calibrated. Lastly, the EWGSOP criteria was used for identify participants with sarcopenia. however, this has now been updated (EWGSOP2). There are two differences in the updated version, which are the use of muscle strength as a criterion rather than low muscle mass [46]. And low physical activity has been excluded [46]. There have been a number of studies comparing EWGSOP1 and EWGSOP2, which showed good levels agreement [6568]. Other studies, indicate a lower prevalence of sarcopenia when using EWGSOP2 [69]. Therefore, this study plans to use EWGSOP1 for identifying participants with sarcopenia. However, the biobank provides a unique opportunity to look at malnutrition, frailty and sarcopenia in an older population due to the physical measurements recorded in conjunction with dietary and nutritional variables.

Summary

This study will include a very large sample, which will strengthen both internal and external validity. Furthermore, the variables in the Biobank have been measured by trained researchers and documented in detail. The proposed study is also strengthened by its novelty: as it is one of the first studies to investigate the overlap between malnutrition, frailty and sarcopenia in the elderly population living in the UK.

Declarations

Ethical considerations/ ethics approval and consent to participate

Anonymised data will be downloaded from the Biobank database. Thus, the researcher will not be required to obtain ethical approval or gain consent from participants, because it is secondary analysis. However, the UK Biobank already has ethical approval and all UK Biobank participants’ signed consent forms and must be registered with general practitioner. They stated that ‘it has obtained Research Tissue Bank (RTB) approval from its governing Research Ethics Committee (REC), as recommended by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES)’ [70]. Nevertheless, precautions will be considered in dealing with the data as mentioned previously in data management section, to ensure data is handled appropriately.

Supporting information

S1 Table. 34-cumulative deficits matched to variables from UK Biobank.

(DOCX)

S1 Checklist. Checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

I would express my deep gratitude to the participants who gave their time and consent for participating in the UK Biobank database.

Abbreviations

BIA

Bioelectrical impedance

BMI

Body Mass Index

ELSA

English Longitudinal Study of Ageing

EWGSOP

European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People

FI

Frailty Index

GLIM

Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition

HCS

Hertfordshire Cohort Study (UK)

ICD-10

International Statistical Classification of Disease and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision

LTCs

long-term conditions

MET

Total Metabolic Equivalent

MSS

Malnutrition-Sarcopenia Syndrome

MUST

Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool

NHANES III

Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (USA)

NRES

National Research Ethics Service

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

All this study protocol files are available from the UK Biobank database (accession URL: https://biobank.ndph.ox.ac.uk/showcase/).

Funding Statement

Yes, this PhD is scholarship from the Saudi Arabia cultural bureau in London, which they pay the tutors without interfering with the works. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Kinsella KG, Phillips DR. Global aging: The challenge of success: Population Reference Bureau Washington, DC; 2005.
  • 2.Office for National Statistics. Overview of the UK population: July 2017: UK government; 2017. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/july2017.
  • 3.United Nations. World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights 2019. https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/world-population-prospects-2019-highlights.html.
  • 4.AGE UK. Briefing: Health and Care of Older People in England 2017 2017. https://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN-GB/For-professionals/Research/The_Health_and_Care_of_Older_People_in_England_2016.pdf?dtrk=true%22.
  • 5.Tyrovolas S, Panagiotakos DB. The role of Mediterranean type of diet on the development of cancer and cardiovascular disease, in the elderly: a systematic review. Maturitas. 2010;65(2):122–30. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.07.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Witham MD, Avenell A. Interventions to achieve long-term weight loss in obese older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age and Ageing. 2010;39(2):176–84. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afp251 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Young K, Bunn F, Trivedi D, Dickinson A. Nutritional education for community dwelling older people: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. International journal of nursing studies. 2011;48(6):751–80. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.03.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Posner BM, Jette AM, Smith KW, Miller DR. Nutrition and health risks in the elderly: the Nutrition Screening Initiative. American journal of public health. 1993;83(7):972–8. doi: 10.2105/ajph.83.7.972 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.World Health Organization. Malnutrition 2016. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malnutrition.
  • 10.Correia MIT, Waitzberg DL. The impact of malnutrition on morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay and costs evaluated through a multivariate model analysis. Clinical nutrition. 2003;22(3):235–9. doi: 10.1016/s0261-5614(02)00215-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Evans WJ, Morley JE, Argilés J, Bales C, Baracos V, Guttridge D, et al. Cachexia: a new definition. Clinical nutrition. 2008;27(6):793–9. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2008.06.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Liu Z, Pang SJ, Man QQ, Wang JZ, Zhao WH, Zhang J. Prevalence of Undernutrition and Related Dietary Factors among People Aged 75 Years or Older in China during 2010–2012. Biomed Environ Sci. 2018;31(6):425–37. doi: 10.3967/bes2018.056 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Fávaro-Moreira NC, Krausch-Hofmann S, Matthys C, Vereecken C, Vanhauwaert E, Declercq A, et al. Risk factors for malnutrition in older adults: a systematic review of the literature based on longitudinal data. Advances in nutrition. 2016;7(3):507–22. doi: 10.3945/an.115.011254 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Evans C. Malnutrition in the elderly: a multifactorial failure to thrive. The Permanente Journal. 2005;9(3):38. doi: 10.7812/TPP/05-056 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Visvanathan R, Newbury JW, Chapman I. Malnutrition in older people—screening and management strategies. Australian family physician. 2004;33(10):799–805. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Miller MD, Thomas JM, Cameron ID, Chen JS, Sambrook PN, March LM, et al. BMI: a simple, rapid and clinically meaningful index of under-nutrition in the oldest old? British journal of nutrition. 2009;101(9):1300–5. doi: 10.1017/s0007114508076289 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chien M-H, Guo H-R. Nutritional status and falls in community-dwelling older people: a longitudinal study of a population-based random sample. PLoS One. 2014;9(3). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ahmed T, Haboubi N. Assessment and management of nutrition in older people and its importance to health. Clinical interventions in aging. 2010;5:207. doi: 10.2147/cia.s9664 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Beck AM, Ovesen L, Osler M. The ‘Mini Nutritional Assessment’(MNA) and the ‘Determine Your Nutritional Health’Checklist (NSI Checklist) as predictors of morbidity and mortality in an elderly Danish population. British Journal of Nutrition. 1999;81(1):31–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cederholm T, Bosaeus I, Barazzoni R, Bauer J, Van Gossum A, Klek S, et al. Diagnostic criteria for malnutrition–an ESPEN consensus statement. Clinical nutrition. 2015;34(3):335–40. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2015.03.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cederholm T, Jensen G, Correia M, Gonzalez M, Fukushima R, Higashiguchi T, et al. GLIM criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition–A consensus report from the global clinical nutrition community. Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle. 2019;10(1):207–17. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.12383 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gingrich A, Volkert D, Kiesswetter E, Thomanek M, Bach S, Sieber CC, et al. Prevalence and overlap of sarcopenia, frailty, cachexia and malnutrition in older medical inpatients. BMC geriatrics. 2019;19(1):1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lardiés-Sánchez B, Sanz-París A. Sarcopenia and Malnutrition in the Elderly. Frailty and Sarcopenia-Onset, Development and Clinical Challenges. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hu X, Zhang L, Wang H, Hao Q, Dong B, Yang M. Malnutrition-sarcopenia syndrome predicts mortality in hospitalized older patients. Scientific reports. 2017;7(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Jeejeebhoy KN. Malnutrition, fatigue, frailty, vulnerability, sarcopenia and cachexia: overlap of clinical features. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care. 2012;15(3):213–9. doi: 10.1097/MCO.0b013e328352694f [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Laur CV, McNicholl T, Valaitis R, Keller HH. Malnutrition or frailty? Overlap and evidence gaps in the diagnosis and treatment of frailty and malnutrition. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism. 2017;42(5):449–58. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2016-0652 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Graham JE, Al Snih S, Berges IM, Ray LA, Markides KS, Ottenbacher KJ. Frailty and 10-year mortality in community-living Mexican American older adults. Gerontology. 2009;55(6):644–51. doi: 10.1159/000235653 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ottenbacher KJ, Graham JE, Al Snih S, Raji M, Samper-Ternent R, Ostir GV, et al. Mexican Americans and frailty: findings from the Hispanic established populations epidemiologic studies of the elderly. American journal of public health. 2009;99(4):673–9. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143958 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hanlon P, Nicholl BI, Jani BD, Lee D, McQueenie R, Mair FS. Frailty and pre-frailty in middle-aged and older adults and its association with multimorbidity and mortality: a prospective analysis of 493 737 UK Biobank participants. The Lancet Public Health. 2018;3(7):e323–e32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gale CR, Cooper C, Aihie Sayer A. Prevalence of frailty and disability: findings from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Age and ageing. 2014;44(1):162–5. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afu148 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Masel Ostir G, Ottenbacher K. Frailty, mortality, and health-related quality of life in older Mexican Americans. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2010;58(11):2149–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03146.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Clegg A, Young J, Iliffe S, Rikkert MO, Rockwood K. Frailty in elderly people. The lancet. 2013;381(9868):752–62. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62167-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.British Geriatrics Society. Introduction to Frailty, fit for Frailty Part 1 2014. https://www.bgs.org.uk/resources/introduction-to-frailty.
  • 34.Muscedere J, Andrew MK, Bagshaw SM, Estabrooks C, Hogan D, Holroyd-Leduc J, et al. Screening for frailty in Canada’s health care system: a time for action. Canadian Journal on Aging/La Revue canadienne du vieillissement. 2016;35(3):281–97. doi: 10.1017/S0714980816000301 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. 2001;56(3):M146–M57. doi: 10.1093/gerona/56.3.m146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Cesari M, Gambassi G, Abellan van Kan G, Vellas B. The frailty phenotype and the frailty index: different instruments for different purposes. Age and ageing. 2013;43(1):10–2. doi: 10.1093/ageing/aft160 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Canadian Medical Association. Canadian study of health and aging: study methods and prevalence of dementia. CMAJ. 1994;150(6):899–913. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Rockwood K, Mitnitski A. Frailty in relation to the accumulation of deficits. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. 2007;62(7):722–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Clegg A, Bates C, Young J, Ryan R, Nichols L, Ann Teale E, et al. Development and validation of an electronic frailty index using routine primary care electronic health record data. Age and ageing. 2016;45(3):353–60. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afw039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Song X, Mitnitski A, Rockwood K. Prevalence and 10‐year outcomes of frailty in older adults in relation to deficit accumulation. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2010;58(4):681–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02764.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Searle SD, Mitnitski A, Gahbauer EA, Gill TM, Rockwood K. A standard procedure for creating a frailty index. BMC geriatrics. 2008;8(1):24. doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-8-24 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.World Health Organization. Ageing and Life Course 2009. http://www.who.int/ageing/en.
  • 43.Mühlberg W, Sieber C. Sarcopenia and frailty in geriatric patients: implications for training and prevention. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie. 2004;37(1):2–8. doi: 10.1007/s00391-004-0203-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Dodds R, Sayer A. Sarcopenia, frailty and mortality: The evidence is growing. Age and ageing. 2016;45(5):570–1. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afw148 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Patel HP, Syddall HE, Jameson K, Robinson S, Denison H, Roberts HC, et al. Prevalence of sarcopenia in community-dwelling older people in the UK using the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) definition: findings from the Hertfordshire Cohort Study (HCS). Age and ageing. 2013;42(3):378–84. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afs197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, Boirie Y, Bruyère O, Cederholm T, et al. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age and ageing. 2019;48(1):16–31. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afy169 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, Boirie Y, Cederholm T, Landi F, et al. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosisReport of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older PeopleA. J. Cruz-Gentoft et al. Age and ageing. 2010;39(4):412–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Jakobsen LH, Rask IK, Kondrup J. Validation of handgrip strength and endurance as a measure of physical function and quality of life in healthy subjects and patients. Nutrition. 2010;26(5):542–50. doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2009.06.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.UK Biobank. About UK Biobank 2018. http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/about-biobank-uk/.
  • 50.UK Biobank. UK Biobank Ethics and Governance Framework 2007. https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/media/0xsbmfmw/egf.pdf.
  • 51.British Nutrition Foundation. Nutrition Requirements 2016. https://www.nutrition.org.uk/attachments/article/234/Nutrition%20Requirements_Revised%20Oct%202016.pdf.
  • 52.Greco F, Sather R. C-Reactive Protein (Blood): University of Rochester Medical Center; 2019 [https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?contenttypeid=167&contentid=c_reactive_protein_serum.
  • 53.Cook MJ, Oldroyd A, Pye SR, Ward KA, Gielen E, Ravindrarajah R, et al. Frailty and bone health in European men. Age and ageing. 2016;46(4):635–41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Kulminski AM, Ukraintseva SV, Kulminskaya IV, Arbeev KG, Land K, Yashin AI. Cumulative deficits better characterize susceptibility to death in elderly people than phenotypic frailty: lessons from the Cardiovascular Health Study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2008;56(5):898–903. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01656.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Tamosauskaite J, Atkins JL, Pilling LC, Kuo C-L, Kuchel GA, Ferrucci L, et al. Hereditary Hemochromatosis Associations with Frailty, Sarcopenia and Chronic Pain: Evidence from 200,975 Older UK Biobank Participants. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A. 2019;74(3):337–42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Doherty A, Jackson D, Hammerla N, Plötz T, Olivier P, Granat MH, et al. Large scale population assessment of physical activity using wrist worn accelerometers: The UK Biobank Study. PloS one. 2017;12(2):e0169649. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169649 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Wei K, Gao Q, Wee S-L, Yap K-B, Ng T-P. Association of frailty and malnutrition with long-term functional and mortality outcomes among community-dwelling older adults: results from the Singapore Longitudinal Aging Study 1. JAMA network open. 2018;1(3):e180650–e. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0650 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Faxén-Irving G, Luiking Y, Grönstedt H, Franzén E, Seiger Å, Vikström S, et al. Do malnutrition, sarcopenia and frailty overlap in nursing-home residents? The Journal of frailty & aging. 2021;10(1):17–21. doi: 10.14283/jfa.2020.45 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Yeung SS, Chan RS, Kwok T, Lee JS, Woo J. Malnutrition According to GLIM Criteria and Adverse Outcomes in Community-Dwelling Chinese Older Adults: A Prospective Analysis. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2020.09.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Van Oyen H, Robine J, Jagger C. Living longer healthier lives, comments on the changes in life expectancy and disability free life expectancy in the European Union since 1995. Are we living longer healthier lifes in the EU. 2005:1–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Christensen K, Doblhammer G, Rau R, Vaupel JW. Ageing populations: the challenges ahead. The lancet. 2009;374(9696):1196–208. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61460-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Lunenfeld B, Stratton P. The clinical consequences of an ageing world and preventive strategies. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2013;27(5):643–59. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.02.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Dodds RM, Granic A, Robinson SM, Sayer AA. Sarcopenia, long‐term conditions, and multimorbidity: findings from UK Biobank participants. Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle. 2020;11(1):62–8. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.12503 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Fry A, Littlejohns TJ, Sudlow C, Doherty N, Adamska L, Sprosen T, et al. Comparison of sociodemographic and health-related characteristics of UK Biobank participants with those of the general population. American journal of epidemiology. 2017;186(9):1026–34. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwx246 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Yang M, Liu Y, Zuo Y, Tang H. Sarcopenia for predicting falls and hospitalization in community-dwelling older adults: EWGSOP versus EWGSOP2. Scientific reports. 2019;9(1):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Franzon K, Zethelius B, Cederholm T, Kilander L. The impact of muscle function, muscle mass and sarcopenia on independent ageing in very old Swedish men. BMC geriatrics. 2019;19(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Krzymińska-Siemaszko R, Tobis S, Lewandowicz M, Wieczorowska-Tobis K. Comparison of four sarcopenia screening questionnaires in community-dwelling older adults from Poland using six sets of international diagnostic criteria of sarcopenia. PLoS One. 2020;15(4):e0231847. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231847 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Zhuang C-L, Shen X, Zou H-B, Dong Q-T, Cai H-Y, Chen X-L, et al. EWGSOP2 versus EWGSOP1 for sarcopenia to predict prognosis in patients with gastric cancer after radical gastrectomy: analysis from a large-scale prospective study. Clinical Nutrition. 2020;39(7):2301–10. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2019.10.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Shafiee G, Heshmat R, Ostovar A, Khatami F, Fahimfar N, Arzaghi SM, et al. Comparison of EWGSOP-1and EWGSOP-2 diagnostic criteria on prevalence of and risk factors for sarcopenia among Iranian older people: the Bushehr Elderly Health (BEH) program. Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders. 2020;19(2):727–34. doi: 10.1007/s40200-020-00553-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.UK biobank. Ethics: the new UK Biobank Ethics Advisory Committee supersedes the Ethics and Governance Council 2018 http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/ethics/.

Decision Letter 0

Melissa M Markofski

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

28 Apr 2022

PONE-D-21-29906

What is the overlap between malnutrition, frailty and sarcopenia in the older population?  Study protocol for cross-sectional study using UK Biobank

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. AlMohaisen,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 09 2022 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,

Melissa M Markofski

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Yes, this PhD is scholarship from the Saudi Arabia cultural bureau in London, which they pay the tutors without interfering with the works.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.""

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

“NO authors have competing interests”

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state ""The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide

5. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option.

6. 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.

7. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: No

********** 

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this submission, the authors propose a cross-sectional study to determine the prevalence and overlap between the related conditions of malnutrition, frailty, and sarcopenia. They will do so utilizing a subset of data from the UK Biobank database. Specifically, they will utilize data from adults 50 to 69 years old. A clear strength of the proposed study is the anticipated subject number of more than 380,000 subjects. In general, the paper was very well written. I do have a few concerns/suggestions for the authors.

1. One of the three phenotypic criteria for malnutrition indicates a cut-point for BMI of < 22 kg/m2 for adults older than 70. However, this data set will not contain subjects over 70.

2. One of the etiologic criteria for malnutrition indicates that CRP and albumin will be used as indices of inflammation. Albumin is not a marker of inflammation, but could be an indicator of malnutrition. I can see including albumin as a marker of malnutrition, but the authors should not indicate that it is an indicator of inflammation. I’m referring specifically to the wording the in second paragraph of page 7.

3. The authors indicate that they are using two models to map frailty—the 36 deficits model and the phenotype model. Under the description of each (pages 7 and 8) they define the criteria for frailty, but it’s less clear how the subjects will be ultimately classified. To be considered frail, do subjects need to meet the criteria under both models (or just one)?

4. Also, the supplementary table for the 36 deficits models is not well labeled. In the text it refers to Table S1. The table is not labeled. It is also not clear in the text that the BioBank does not include 3 of the 36 deficits.

5. For sarcopenia, the authors are using the EWGSOP definition. While they will have measurements of muscle mass (BIA) and muscle strength (handgrip), they must reply on self-reported data for physical function. The criterion for physical function in the EWGSOP is gait speed. Under the section “mapping sarcopenia” the authors state that data from IPAQ will be used to assess physical function. Neither the short nor the long form of the IPAQ ask questions regarding gait speed. Rather they return an estimate of habitual PA in METxmin/wk. Thus, the wording in this section is incorrect. Did the authors mean to state that they will use the responses to the walking speed question in table 3? If so, are their studies suggesting that self-reported, “slow pace” walking speed is significantly correlated with the cut-points for gait speed suggested in the EWGSOP definition? I know that the authors are constrained by the data collected in the UK BioBank, but they need to acknowledge that relying on a self-reported assessment of walking speed is a limitation in diagnosing sarcopenia in this population. This is somewhat addressed in the discussion section, but not specifically.

Reviewer #2: The background gives a good overview of the topic. Methods/design are very well described, and the variables are clearly illustrated in table 1, 2. The statistical analyses that will be used are satisfactory presented. Discussion and study limitations are conclusive stating “using a secondary database not designed specifically to answer the research question resulting in selection bias in the sample". The authors also highlight the limitations because some of the variables for identification of malnutrition, frailty or sarcopenia will not be available or are self-reported.

Language check!

Minor comments; Abstract: Discussion: This proposed study will help with understanding the presence (I suggest: clarify or help to understand).

Background, page 3, 2nd paragraph, first sentence “alterations to the senses” do you mean “in”?

2nd paragraph line 3-6, rewrite. I suggest adding ref 19 (fig 3 a conceptual tree of nutritional disorders) along with ref 9 and focus on malnutrition i.e.: a) starvation derived undernutrition and b) cachexia – disease related malnutrition! It is important to include “disease-related malnutrition” in the text.

Page 7, line 2 some word (s) is missing here!

Page 9, paragraph 4 second line – word (s) missing – will be collected?

Discussion, line 3. Here you may add a study performed in nursing home setting: Line 7-8 word (s) missing!

Faxén-Irving G, Luiking Y, Grönstedt H, Franzén E, Seiger Å, Vikström S, Wimo A, Boström AM, Cederholm T. Do Malnutrition, Sarcopenia and Frailty Overlap in Nursing-Home Residents? https://doi.org/10.14283/jfa.2020.45 J frailty Aging 2021;10(1)17-21.

********** 

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

[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. 2022 Dec 6;17(12):e0278371. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278371.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


6 Jun 2022

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their insightful comments that have improved the quality of our manuscript. All comments have been addressed as shown in the word document (Reviewer Respond)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Sultana Monira Hussain

22 Sep 2022

PONE-D-21-29906R1What is the overlap between malnutrition, frailty and sarcopenia in the older population?  Study protocol for cross-sectional study using UK BiobankPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. AlMohaisen,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 06 2022 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,

Sultana Monira Hussain

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

I agree with several of the comments raised by the reviewers. Please, consider reviewing all those issues raised.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The MS has improved!

Some minor comments, most language:

Page 3, line 55-58: “Malnutrition has two forms: undernutrition, which involves wasting, stunted growth (starvation related under-weight and cachexia or disease related malnutrition), vitamin or mineral deficiencies (micronutrient abnormalities), and being overweight or obese (overnutrition)”.

My suggestion: There are (or exist) two forms of malnutrition…….

Table 2. Variable mapped to malnutrition, frailty and sarcopenia. This table is difficult to read – it’s some kind of overlapping in the pdf-file.

Page 10, Line 202-204: word is missing. “These variables will represent three phenotypic criteria and two etiologic criteria, where patients will be defined as having malnutrition if …..has one phenotypic criterion and one aetiological criterion.

Page 13, Line 278-280: words are missing: “From the baseline assessment, details of the participants’ characteristics anthropometric measurements, participants’ medical histories, smoking status, uses of medications, dietary intake records and alcohol intake”……..

Discussion. Page 14, Line 288-292: A study measured the overlap between the three conditions in a nursing home, which showed that 7% of the 92 residents aged 75 and above had all three conditions, and 32% of the 290 participants were free from malnutrition, frailty, and sarcopenia. In addition, 5% of participants were malnourished with sarcopenia in the nursing home. Whereas 10% patients had sarcopenia and were frail 58].

My suggestion: In a group of 92 selected nursing home residents aged 75 and above all three conditions were present in 7%. Twenty-nine (32%) residents were neither malnourished, sarcopenic nor frail. In addition, 5% of the residents were malnourished and simultaneously sarcopenic and frailty coexisted with sarcopenia in 10% of the subjects.

Line 296-298. word is missing: “This highlights …….early identification of these conditions in older adults is vital so treatment and interventions can initiated in this age group”

Reviewer #3: Authors reports that baseline assessment will be used for the study. Therefore, since participants aged between 40-69 were included, I do not expect to have participants older than 70 years in analyses. This point is unclear and deserved better explanation.

It is not clear why authors expect to include 76% of the total sample of the UK biobank in the analyses. Please develop.

Table 1 and Table 2 are unreadable in the PDF document I have received. Therefore I was unable to review the criteria of sarcopenia, frailty and malnutrition, which is unfortunate.

I recommend authors to use the EWGSOP2 criteria for the diagnosis of sarcopenia. Please update criteria and cut-offs used for the diagnosis.

Could author inform if tools used for the measures of muscle mass and muscle strength were calibrated ? This is an important aspect.

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[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. 2022 Dec 6;17(12):e0278371. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278371.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


11 Oct 2022

Thank you for your time and effort. Please find, all your valuable comments have been address in separate word document, attached as (Rebuttal 10 Oct 2022)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal 10 Oct 2022.docx

Decision Letter 2

Sultana Monira Hussain

16 Nov 2022

What is the overlap between malnutrition, frailty and sarcopenia in the older population?  Study protocol for cross-sectional study using UK Biobank

PONE-D-21-29906R2

Dear Dr. AlMohaisen,

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,

Sultana Monira Hussain

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The MS has improved and the study will be interesting to read about later on!

Some minor (language) comments:

Page 3, Line 55-56: There are two forms of malnutrition undernutrition, and being overweight or obese which results from diet-related non-communicable diseases [9, 10].

Suggest: There are two forms of malnutrition: undernutrition and being……..

Page 7, line 151: Then a series of assessment stations where undertaken….

should be were not where

Reviewer #3: Authors responded well to my previous comments. I am favorable with the publication of this protocol.

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Charlotte Beaudart

**********

Acceptance letter

Sultana Monira Hussain

25 Nov 2022

PONE-D-21-29906R2

What is the overlap between malnutrition, frailty and sarcopenia in the older population? Study protocol for cross-sectional study using UK Biobank

Dear Dr. AlMohaisen:

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. Sultana Monira Hussain

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. 34-cumulative deficits matched to variables from UK Biobank.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Checklist. Checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal 10 Oct 2022.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All this study protocol files are available from the UK Biobank database (accession URL: https://biobank.ndph.ox.ac.uk/showcase/).


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES